WHAT SOUTHERN LEADERS BOASTED OF AT THE TIME
SLAVERY ORDAINED BY GOD AS PUNISHMENT TO INFERIOR RACE:
|DAVIS REGULARLY BOASTED THEN|
OF THINGS SOUTHERN "HISTORIANS" DARE NOT WHISPER NOW
Jeff Davis, and almost all Confederate leaders from 1857-1866, bragged from the rooftops about things you will hardly heard Southern "historians" mention now, certainly they are not taught in our schools.
Yet schools are named after the men mentioned here -- men who had slave girls whipped, sold children, and bragged it was Gods will.
These are not some "gotcha" quotes, taken out of context later, to make these guys look insane and vile. This is in context, and what they boasted of, regularly, loudly, and proudly.
More importantly, it's what they did. They did these things -- they tied up girls to be whipped, they sold children, they bragged it was God's will, and most importantly, they demanded the spread of slavery as a War Ultimatum.
No -- you won't hear this in text books, explained this way. But this is the way Southern leaders boasted of it, at the time.
Did you know men like Davis, VP Stephens, and Robert E Lee all wrote that God wanted blacks not only enslaved, but punished.
Pain was payback for sins committed by blacks in the bible. You didn't know that? This was taught and bragged about at the time. Pain was also "necessary for their instruction" wrote Lee.
That's right -- punished. The "inferior" black race was being punished, per God's will.
Who said so? Robert E Lee for one, Jeff Davis for another, and Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.
|GOD 'intended and knew" slaves should feel "painful discipline" including whipping.|
Pain "is necessary for their instruction" and the will of God.
Did you learn any of this is school?
Did you learn that the entire Southern leadership -- defined slaves not as humans, for purposes of the US Constitution -- but property?
This was the basic dispute -- are slaves human for the purposes of our Constitution? Or property?
The Southern leaders loudly and proudly and repeatedly, emphatically said blacks are "not persons" but property.
Did anyone ever tell you that in school?
The Southern controlled United States Supreme Court wrote that vile "rule" by decree. No law was passed, the Taney Court just announced it.
Remember that. And this was not a minor point, according to Southern leaders, this was their own loud and proud "cornerstone".
BLACKS ARE "SO INFERIOR", GOD ORDAINED THEM TO BE ENSLAVED AND PUNISHED BY THE WHITE RACE
Southern leaders -- loudly, proudly, and in official documents -- claimed blacks were "so inferior" that God intended them not only to be enslaved, but to be punished.
According to those who actually created the Confederacy -- including the President and Vice President, the cornerstone, the reason the Confederacy existed, was to spread "
the great moral truth" that blacks are inferior and God intended them to not just be enslaved, but punished.
Really -- punished. Blacks should be enslaved AS PUNISHMENT based on biblical interpretation
These things are mentioned -- in a very delicate way, so not to piss off Southern sympathizers, who still desperately need to feel their heroes were men of honor and principle.
Lee, Davis, Stephens, all said slavery is God's will, and we are obeying GOD. It is not our role to even question God's will for slavery.
Have you ever heard that Southern leaders insisted their new nation was founded on this "great moral truth" that God ordained punishment of the inferior black race?
This was not some historian later trying to make the Confederate leaders look bad. This is what Confederate leaders regularly bragged about, in public and private. In salve ledgers and speeches. In letters and books and newspapers.
They bragged of these things -- in fact, promised war if slavery was not spread, based on these "great moral truths" of what God supposedly ordained and demanded (ordained).
Nor were these "gotcha" quotes taken out of context. These are very much in context quotes, and Southern leaders were quite proud and emphatic about it -- till they lost.
Forget opinions - look at facts, what Southern leaders boasted of and did. Read Southern documents, books, speeches, slave ledgers, and personal letters, from that period. They are quite unlike the narrative of an honorable group of men "concerned with state's rights".
In fact, Southern leaders quickly flipped flopped and hated states rights by 1861, when before, that was their big excuse to spread slavery. But when "state's rights" got in the way of spreading slavery, because Kansas rejected slavery, everything changed.
Well the excuse to spread slavery changed -- the intense almost maniacal efforts to spread slavery, intensified.
The point is, Southern leaders were quite proud of it, including Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Alexander Stephens. They said it loudly and proudly, at the time.
They did not just admit it -- they BRAGGED about it.
Southern leaders boasted, bragged, repeatedly and at length, that their new nation was God's will to spread slavery and punishment of the inferior black race that had sinned against God.
You didn't know that? Southern leaders sure knew it, and boasted of it, for years.
Blacks are not human for purposes of the US Constitution -- the official statement and position of SOuthern leaders.
To claim blacks were equal in the eyes of God, said the South Carolina Declaration of Causes, was "grievous religious error" that made war and or secession inevitable.
That's right, the North had committed "grievous religious error" just by letting people speak openly that blacks were equal to whites in the eyes of GOD.
Bet you didn't know that? To allow people to even SPEAK of such things (it was illegal in the South to preach such things, and had been for 40 years) was cause enough for secession, and if need be, war.
Remember, Southern leaders didn't admit this - they bragged of it. But for some reason, Southern "historians" dare not mention what Southern leaders boasted of, at the time.
Davis wrote that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas
was the "Intolerable Grievance"
JEFF DAVIS USE OF DRED SCOTT -- BLACKS ARE SUB HUMAN, "NOT PERSONS FOR PURPOSES OF US CONSTITUTION "
THATS RIGHT - not persons, "so inferior" God ordained the African race for slavery, as punishment for biblical sins.
YOU HEARD RIGHT -- NOT PERSONS, BUT INSTEAD PROPERTY AND ORDAINED BY GOD TO BE PUNISHED
Q? WHY DID DAVIS AND SOUTHERN LEADERS USE BLACKS SUPPOSED SUB HUMAN STATUS TO PUSH SLAVERY?
Kansas rejected slavery three different times by votes -- one time by 98% -2%. So by what logic, by what rationale, did Davis justify spreading slavery where it was overwhelmingly rejected by the white males there?
By the Dred Scott decision. Here is something your history teacher "glosses over".Its so disgusting, they dare not teach it.
But Southern leaders boasted of it at the time. Remember that.
The Dred Scott Decision
trumped "states rights" according to Davis.
The SPREAD of slavery. For decades, the SPREAD of slavery, not the protection of it, but the spread of it, was the central issue in the United States. The "Compromise of 1820" Ending slavery where it existed did not become an issue till later -- long after the Civil War started.
People forget that now.
By 1861, SOuthern leaders convinced themselves this was a matter of life -- and death. Not just "religious" excuses to spread slavery, but the number of slaves had grown so large, every day, life in the South for whites revolved around the possibility of slave revolts and death of whites, like the Haiti slave revolts of decades before.
Without question, this is the most under taught basic truth in the history of slavery and the Civil War.
Everyone involved in politics at the time -- North and South -- and every newspaper editor, and every slave owner, every judge, every bounty hunter, every slave owner, virtually every citizen, was keenly aware of relentless efforts and excuses to spread slavery.
The spread of slavery, not the protection of it, was the endless and basic demand by Southern leaders for over a generation.
And everyone knew it. No one pretended otherwise. The excuses to spread slavery changed -- from states rights, to God's will, to Dred Scott -- but the basic demands to spread slavery never waverered, in fact, just became more violent, and more extreme.
The spread of slavery, according to Southern leaders -- was a matter of white survival. Any excuse would do, but as the excuses grew more absurd, slave owners and Southern leaders did not hesitate to claim the survival of white race, in the South, depended on the spread of slavery.
And anything that got in the way of that survival was an evil thing, including "State's rights" by 1861.
Davis wrote that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas
was the "Intolerable Grievance"
Historians today may mention this aspect of the Civil War, but it's not mentioned at all in any US text book we have ever seen. Its certainly not shown as the central issue the "intolerable issue" according to Davis.
So central was the issue of the spread of slavery, that Southern newspapers called it "THE TRUE ISSUE" and the Confederate Constitution included it in section IV, which is the main thrust of Confederate goals, stated by them, at the time.
Lincoln spoke of the South's obessession to spread slavery, again and again -- notably in every Lincoln Douglas debate, and in the famous "House Divided" speech. Indeed, the House Divided speech could be called "Lincoln's accusation of Southern obsession to spread slavery".
Bet your history teacher never told you about it.
So by 1861, Southern leaders did a flip flop. Earlier, before 1858, "states rights" were the big buzz words for the spread of slavery.
But when Kansas rejected slavery, those Buzz words and state's rights excuse was quieted, and new buzz words replaced it -- " Dred Scott decision".
Surprised? No one alive then was surprised, it was common knowledge. The Southern leaders and papers bragged about it -- but historians, particularly "Southern historians" have not mentioned it, because there is no defense.
When Kansas rejected slavery three times, by vote and by war, Southern leaders could no longer use "states rights" as an excuse to spread slavery.
SO they found a different excuse to spread slavery.
This is about the excuse Southern leaders used after Kansas rejected slavery .
Gee, I wonder why.
Davis himself bragged that the resistance to the spread of slavery into KANSAS was the "intolerable grievance"
By 1861, the shrill hatred of Southern leaders caused them to be more blunt about the "true issue". The Richmond paper literally called the SPREAD of SLAVERY -- "THE TRUE ISSUE."
Southern leaders issued Five Ultimatums -- all five were about the spread of slavery, one way or another. The first two Ultimatums were specifically the spread of slavery.
New York newspapers the next day suggested Lincoln obey the Five SOuthern Ultimatums -- of course, Lincoln would not. The Ultimatums demanded, incredibly, that Lincoln and US Congress force Kansas to accept and respect slavery -- after Kansas had voted three times against it, and fought four year war against slavery.
Lincoln was not about to obey the insane Ultimatums by Southern leaders to spread slavery, no matter what the New York papers suggested he do.
Notice Davis quit mentioning states rights? You probably did not notice, but people then did -- and your history teacher should have told you about it.
In fact Davis would repudiate states rights to decide slavery issue themselves. One Southern paper flipped flopped so completely on "states rights" and "popular sovereignty" that they called popular sovereignty "a trick of the devil".
Seriously -- a trick of the devil! Before, when slave owners could force folks to accept slavery, they claimed they were just "going by popular sovereignty But when folks rejected slavery, Davis and Southern leaders did a complete 180 degree change.
In Jeff Davis own book -- Rise and Fall of the Confederacy -- he boasted that the "intolerable grievance" was the resistance to the spread of slavery.
And in the same book, Davis "forgot" to mention anywhere that Kansas had voted again, and again, and again, against slavery. Likewise Davis "forgot" to mention Kansas rejected slavery by force in a four year bloody struggle against it.
So people who read Davis's book, unless they are smarter than the average high school history teacher, don't catch that.
Other Southern leaders used different reason -- Robert Toombs spoke often and loudly that white race was in danger of being slaughtered, if slavery was not spread. Another "detail" students are not taught in history class.
Southern leaders bragged about it then -- from the rooftops. Spread slavery or there will be war. Ultimatums mean war -- and Southern leaders specifically called it ULtimatums.
Southern editors bragged, even after the war, that they had warned the North an election of anyone against the SPREAD of slavery would be taken as an ACT OF WAR
In speeches, in official documents, in newspaper headlines, in books -- they demanded the spread of slavery.
And promised war if anyone stood in their way. Specifically they demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, which had voted 98% -2% against slavery in one election, and voted against slavery in two other elections.
Furthermore, Kansas "sod busters" had fought a 4 year physical war against slave "thugs" sent to Kansas to force slavery down their necks.
FIVE SOUTHERN ULTIMATUMS
Southern newspapers boasted of it -- specifically the Richmond Examiner, putting the "TRUE ISSUE" as they called it, in headlines, May 81861, in the "FIVE ULTIMATUMS.
Of the five war ultimatums (these were war ultimatums, not suggestions) the first two were about the spread of slavery.
The first two Ultimatums were about the spread of slavery into Kansas. The next day, New York papers repeated the Ultimatums and suggested Lincoln obey them, to avoid war.
No one - absolutely no one -- was surprised that the first official action of the Confederacy was to demand the spread of slavery. This was the basic demand for decades, and filled newspaper for years prior to this.
Southern leaders -- Davis, Toombs, Stephens -- were quite clear, quite proud of it.
Spread slavery -- vs -- not spread. This was the question and leaders on both sides spoke of it that way, at the time. You might not have heard it expressed in these terms, but everyone alive in 1861 heard it repeatedly.
Lincoln's famous note to Stephens in May of 1861 said it as clearly as can be spoken.
Stephens entirely agreed -- and included that note in his own autobiography, boasting of it.
But for some reason, you won't hear Southern "historians" even mention now. Yet the demand to spread slavery is in the CSA Constitution itself.
Never mind that the Territories were very much against slavery, and that Kansas voted overwhelmingly against slavery --- Southern leaders all demanded the spread of slavery there, as a war ultimatum.
This was NOT a negotiation point to reenter the union, these five ultimatums were instructions the North must obey to avoid war.
Furthermore, even after the CIvil War, Southern newspaper editors were boastful that they had warned the North about war --if the North dare elect someone against the spread of slavery!
So what SOutherners then boasted of -- Southern apologists dare not whisper now.
That entire aspect of the basic demands by the South is often simply not mentioned at all -- yet it was the most basic part of Southern demands.
Here are just a few Davis statements our "history" books forget to mention.
Slaves are "inferior beings" and can not be considered as human, "not persons" for purposes of Constitution. They are property.
Slavery is "A Divine Gift" to superior white race, and Africans "were delivered unto us fit only for servitude".
Slavery is "The Cornerstone" of the Confederacy.
Slavery "shall be spread" into Kansas, and anywhere slave owners wanted.
The Confederate army will - by force of arms - establish slavery into the North as well as into Kansas, and put all those with "African blood and their issue back on slave status" forever. He said this, he explained "so their will be no confusion in the future".
Davis used the "blacks are inferior beings" excuse to spread slavery -- the Dred Scott excuse -- after Kansas rejected slavery.
Davis was right -- the USSC did say blacks were "inferior beings" a sort of "sub human" class of beings, not protected by the US Constitution.
Davis, Taney, and Southern leaders gloated, loudly and proudly that blacks "clear inferiority" made it impossible -- that's right impossible, for reasonable people to believe blacks were included in Declaration of Independence.
Look what Taney himself wrote, in his decision.
And he said so. Davis himself, emphatically, repeatedly, and at length spoke emphatically that the Dred Scott decision made slaves not part of the people, and instead, part of property. Furthermore, by that "logic" Kansas, nor anyone else, could keep slavery out.
No one told you that, did they? They might have mentioned Kansas. They might have mentioned Dred Scott. But no history class I ever took, no text book I ever saw, showed this as the CENTRAL ISSUE OF THE PERIOD.
And Davis said so. In fact, Davis idiotically said if Dred Scott were decided the other way -- the South would have given up slavery!! But Davis, like all sociopaths with a slick gift of gab, sure didn't say that before Dred Scott. Only later, trying to fool people, did he say that.
Ever hear of the Five Southern Ultimatums?
What the South bragged about then, you won't hear spoken with a whisper now.
Like the demands to spread slavery for God.
Like the brag that blacks were "so inferior" they were property, not human, not persons, for the purposes of the US Constitution.
Who bragged that way? Jefferson Davis, Roger Taney, Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephens.
They boasted about this from the roof tops, wrote it in headlines and books and speeches . But you probably never heard of it.
The Five Ultimatums were part of the drastic flip flop, from 1857 to 1861, when Southern leaders rejected states rights and changed their excuse for the spread of slavery.
No case before the United States Supreme Court ever allowed the spread of slavery by force. But the Dred Scott decision allowed exactly that -- and Jefferson Davis boasted about it.
The most basic two words of the Dred Scott decision, I can guarantee you never heard about, not in grade school. Not in high school. Likely not even in college text books -- at least we haven't seen it there, yet.
The inferiority of blacks were so "profound" Taney personally, by decree, created a second "class" of humans -- and he said so. No one told you, but Davis was proud of it, and told everybody.
Lincoln was aghast, and told everyone too -- how terrible it was. Listen to this speech by Lincoln, condensed for the 1939 movie. You likewise were never told the Lincoln Douglas debates were all about -- can you guess? -- the Dred Scott decision, and the question of whether blacks were human, or property.,
CLICK ON LINCOLN VIDEO
WATCH HOW BOTH MEN DEBATE DRED SCOTT
Lincoln spoke openly about it -- dozens of times. In fact, he talked about Dred Scott and it's foul decree almost time he spoke, after the decision was issued.
Stephen a Douglas defended the Dred Scott decision.
So it was a BFD -- a big deal. A really big deal.
But it's often glossed over now, especially in Southern edited text books, this is never even mentioned.
Did you know that according to Jeff Davis and Roger Taney --states had no right to reject slavery?
This is not taught in our schools this way, but this is how Davis and Lincoln both spoke of it, at the time.
Davis cited the Dred Scott decision as PROOF the South had rights to force slavery into Kansas, and Kansas had to submit.
Davis declared the resistance to the spread of slavery as "the intolerable grievance." This is not taken out of context "gotcha" quote, this is the basic history of US from about 1850 to 1865
By the "logic" of blacks as "inferior beings". This is how Davis explained it, himself.
In a way , Davis was right. Blacks were defined as inferior beings. Blacks, according to United States Supreme Court, were not persons. They were property.
Did you ever hear anyone brag about that when talking about Jeff Davis? Or the Confederacy? Of course not. It's disgusting. And it was disgusting then, and Lincoln said so, over and over.
In fact, much of the Lincoln Douglas debates were about this exact thing-- did you know that? Stephen A Douglas defended the Taney Court's ruling. Lincoln eviscerated it, and said we can overturn it.
Davis justified spread of slavery because of Dred Scott-- to force slavery into anyplace he wanted. But before Dred Scott, he justified it on precisely the opposite grounds -- states rights.
When states rejected slavery -- as Kansas did -- Davis had to come up with a different justification. Yes, it was that simple. No, they don't teach it that way in our text books, but that is how Davis and Lincoln saw it at the time.
Notice when Davis gave excuse that slavery must be spread, he "forgot" to mention that Kansas voted 98% to 2% against slavery.
Woven into the CSA Constitution, announced in Southern headlines as "The TRUE ISSUE" in Richmond papers May 9, 1861, Southern leaders announced Five Ultimatums.
These Ultimatums were war ultimatums -- as the newspapers joyously announced. Edward Pollard, editor, told the North specifically -- you are hereby warned. We have taken the election of Lincoln to be "AN ACT OF WAR".
The first two Ultimatums were about the spread of slavery into Kansas.
Lincoln meanwhile bent over backward to assure the South he had no intention, power, or plans to stop slavery where it was.
Southern leaders, speaking to cheering crowds, bragged that their new nation would spread slavery, as God intended.
New York papers suggested Lincoln obey the Five ULtimatums -- Southern leaders did not issue idle threats, their leaders had beat men nearly to death on Senate floor, and had grow rich on threats and violence against their own slaves.
No one thought the South's war ultimatums were issued in the heat of the moment -- their violent demands to spread slavery had been center to American politics along with the growth of slave power in the South for decades.
Did you know Southern leaders claimed they would spread slavery, as God intended, throughout the world? Not slavery of old, but the "new" slavery of only African slaves, who were being punished per the bible.
Alexander H Stephens "Cornerstone" speech is so vile, so extreme, when you first read it, you think someone made this up! God intended slavery as a punishment to black inferior race? And the Confederacy was "the first nation on earth" to be founded on this great truth?
Are you kidding? Why aren't we told about that?
Remember, this Cornerstone speech was given at least 8 times, to cheering crowds, according to Southern newspapers who presented the speech glowingly and proudly.
This was not some "historian" later trying to make the South look like lunatics -- this was their own leader, bragging in a series of speeches, where he was actually explaining to the public what the CSA Constitution was based on!!
This was the South's OWN leaders boasting the hell out of it.
If the South had won the Civil War, that speech would have been standard fare, to be honored, in Southern schools as long as the Confederacy lasted.
KANSAS CHANGED EVERYTHING
Davis, and everyone who read any newspaper from 1850-1860, knew that Kansas had not only voted overwhelmingly to keep slavery out, but fought a bloody war to keep it out.
Southern leaders thought they could force Kansas to accept slavery -- by threats and violence. It did not work. They wanted to pretend Kansas had accepted slavery -- but when that did not work, Davis and Southern leaders quit pretending, and boldly said, Kansas MUST accept slavery.
The excuse of states rights, of course, Davis didn't dare mention. From then on, Davis would speak about "inferior beings" and the Dred Scott decision.
True, before 1857, Southern leaders often used phrase "states rights" or "popular sovereignty" as excuse to spread slavery. But Kansas changed all that.
Look closely -- after Kansas rejected slavery for the third time, speeches by Davis and other Southern leaders dropped the "states rights" excuse, and adopted the "Dred Scott Excuse."
KANSAS 98% VOTE AGAINST SLAVERY
You probably read it one time in your history book, but Kansas had four votes about slavery. The first vote was rigged, because literally there was no place on the ballot to vote against slavery.
That was the "LeCompton" Constitution vote, which was such a fraud, even Steven A Douglas, a lackey of the slave owners, called it a fraud.
Kansas overhwelmingly rejected slavery in the next three votes, one time by 98%.
KANSAS CHANGED EVERYTHING
Not just votes, Kansas fought a bloody war for 4 years, to keep slavery out.
The more Southern leaders tried to force slavery in, the more (white) people in Kansas rejected slavery. But Davis and the other Confederate leaders steadfastly demanded the spread of slavery there -- specifically.
In fact, the first official act of the Confederacy, was to weave into their constitution the mandate that Kansas accept slavery. Yes, they knew all about the votes against slavery. And they knew all about the bloody war in Kansas, rejecting slavery.
SO the spread of slavery was openly demanded -- proudly and loudly at the time. No one thought otherwise. Lincoln, Davis, and Vice President Davis were all on the same page.
Davis and Alexander Stevens, of course, were calling for the SPREAD of slavery, in war ultimatums. Lincoln was not about to obey. But here is a note Lincoln sent to Stephens just before the Civil War. Lincoln would not see him personally, but sent this note -- and Stephens, by the way, agreed with it.
It was only later that apologists walked back that "spread slavery" language. See this clever retitle of Southern best seller -- still sold to this day. The original title bragged about the SPREAD of slavery being the issue. Notice the title after 1900 was "adjusted" to omit any mention of the abolitionist desire to stop the spread of slavery
The original title of this book was
"The South Vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of the Northern Abolitionists"
Anyone who just sought to stop the SPREAD of slavery was saw as an enemy of the South.
re the life and death importance of spread of slavery is in official Florida Declaration of Causes -- not allowing the spread of slavery was like "torturing us to death by a slow fire. "
VOTING AGAINST SPREAD OF SLAVERY =
ACT OF WAR
Unless you are a history major at a NORTHERN university, you may never hear about this. Southern leaders and newspapers were BRAGGING -- BRAGGING -- did we mention BRAGGING that if the North dared vote for an anti slavery candidate, they would take that, get this AS AN ACT OF WAR
No one ever told me this, till I read it in Southern papers bragging out the ass about it!
Why no one told me, I have no idea. Not only did they brag about it then, even after the war, for a while, they wrote books, claiming essentially "Hey, don't blame us, we told you voting for anti slavery guy was an act of war."
That's n ot what historians tell you, it's not what your college professor tells you. But it's what these crazy fucking bastards were bragging about at the time.
Here Southern editor Pollard tells that the South had warned the North, that an election of anyone against the spread of slavery was "A Declaration of WAR against the South."
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.
SOUTHERN LEADERS DID NOT BLUFF
Southern leaders were men who whipped women and sold children. Yes they were. Men who did otherwise did not stay slave owners long. If you believe that crap about benevolent slave owners who were kind, you are a dumb ass and wrong.
Slave owners even had men hung, or resisted being enslaved or fought back against men who raped or enslaved their wives or daughters. Dozens, if not hundreds, of slave men were burned to death, if they had caused injury or death by their attempts to fight back.
So Southern leaders were not bluffing. They would be seen forever as cowards if they were.
Pollard again makes it clear, voting for an abotionlis
By what "logic" did Jeff Davis use to demand the spread of slavery -- as Southern newspapers boasted about in 1861? Kansas rejected slavery, everyone knew that.
So how can Davis logically demand the spread of slavery there? Not just demand it, but promise war if slavery was stopped by the people in Kansas?
YOU NEVER HEARD THIS
IN HISTORY CLASS
This is the most important case in US history
and you never hear it explained bluntly
SOUTHERN LEADERS LOUD AND PROUD
FIVE SOUTHER ULTIMATUMS
TO SPREAD SLAVERY