Saturday, October 5, 2013






    Kansas white voters   rejected slavery. 
Jefferson Davis demanded the spread of slavery there, anyway. Let me repeat that.... Kansas voters rejected slavery three times, once by a vote of 98%-2%.

And Kansas whites had fought a four year war against the thugs sent by slave owners. 

Everyone knew Kansas rejected slavery.   But Southern leaders demanded the spread of slavery there, anyway.  

Bet you didn't know that. 

Bet you never heard that Southern leaders, books, newspapers, and speeches, demanded the spread of slavery, and promised war if they did not get it.

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.

Just stopping the SPREAD of slavery would kill the white race.  No, Im not kidding.  They boasted of it, and used it as a reason for secession and the civil war. An OFFICIAL reason. 

Let the voters decide?  
When Kansas rejected slavery Southern newspaper called popular votes "a trick of the devil"
Bet you didn't know that. 

Southern newspapers, documents, speeches and books shouted it out proudly.


You heard right, slavery had to be spread for SURVIVAL  -- and official Confederate documents.   

Look at this -- just stopping the SPREAD of slavery would be like burning us to death slowly.   Who said that?  The official declaration of causes by governor of Florida.   That is an OFFICIAL document.   Similar claims were made regularly by Southern leaders, in letters, speeches, and books.  Bet you didn't know any of that. 

Expand slavery -- or the white race will die in the South - stopping the spread of slavery is "burning us to death slowly". 

That's right.  This Southern document -- written to tell future generations why they seceded -- claims Lincoln will torture them by a " slow fire" if he stops the SPREAD of slavery.  And all the leading men in the SOuth, claims the document, think the same way!! 

That's not what some mean old historian later said, that's what Southern leaders said, and they specifically stated "all leading men" of the South think that way too!!   

Why isn't any of this even mentioned in our US text books? 

Because US text books started in Texas, and have been published in Texas, and as such, the Texas Board of (mis) education decides what goes in the text books.





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.

Bet you didn't know that either.  This amazing declaration -- official decree by the United States Supreme Court, and you never heard that, did you?



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, sapid slavery SHALL be recognized and protected in the territories -- they meant Kansas.   And Kansas had voted 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 Surpreme 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!!  And the logic is stated as a directive, but history teachers don't know it immediately?  They have to look it up? 


This was how Jefferson Davis himself explained it!!  

This is how they explained it, loudly and proudly, at the time!

But it's not in US text books,  at least not in a clear way. Why not?

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.

From the decision, itself....

There is a term -- inferior beings as the basis of their order that blacks are not persons, not human, is never  mentioned by the likes of "historians" such as McPherson and Eric Foner,.

Not once!!   Go look.  Yet this "so inferior" language, that blacks are "not persons" but property, was the very heart of the dispute.  

Who said that was the center of the dispute? 

  Jefferson Davis said it, and he bragged of it!   He wrote this as his own explanation, in his own book!  He wasn't ashamed of it, he boasted of it, as did other Southern leaders and newspapers.



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.  This is the big untold story -- the new excuse, according to Jeff Davis himself, was the "inferior being" logic of Dred Scott decision.

Who said so?  Jeff Davis said so, loudly, and proudly. 

Inferior beings. INFERIOR BEINGS. Not human for purposes of the US constitution -- officially, by order, by decree, not persons.

Again, who said so, loudly and proudly? Jeff Davis boasted of this decision and boasted to it was the ENTIRE reason Kansas had no right to stop slavery.  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.

Remember this, things the Southern leaders boasted of at the time, are simply not taught in US schools.  If you find a single US text book where Southern leaders are quoted boasting of the inferior nature of blacks, and how blacks were not persons and that was the reason they could spread slavery contrary to states rights, we will give you 1000 dollars. 

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. 


Did you know Kansas rejected slavery three times, once by a vote of 98% -2%? 

This basic fact -- known by everyone at the time -- is often overlooked in US text books.  Kansas rejects slavery - and Southern leaders issue war ultimatums that slavery be spread, into Kansas.

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.