Saturday, October 5, 2013

Southern leaders bragged they were killing to spread slavery. Not keep it, SPREAD IT



When Kansas rejected slavery by 90% vote, Southern leaders sent over 1000 killers there in 1856.

Atchison welcomes the hired men from Texas, boasts of the flag being red in color for the blood they will spill, and says this is the most "joyous" day of his life.

He makes them all promise they will draw blood (kill) that day. 

His speech is here 

It's about time someone told you...


1) Kansas citizens rejected slavery by 90% vote six years before the Civil War.

2)Kansas citizens were trying to enter the US as a free state.

3)  Jefferson Davis sent  David Rice Atchison, and eventually over 1000 killers, to Kansas to stop Kansas from becoming a free state.

4)  Stephen A Douglas  helped them do it by passing Kansas Act.

5) It almost worked. It lead to Southern War Ultimatums and the US Civil War


Souther leaders said -- long before Lincoln even got on the national stage -- that they will spread slavery to the entire West,  and spread it against (yes against) state's rights.

As you will see, even after Kansas voted officially against slavery by 90 and 95%,  and after they became a free state, Southern leaders not only kept killing in Kansas --they issued War Ultimatums that Kansas must accept and respect slavery.

 Above is from from Jefferson Davis's own book  -- " Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"  

Southern headlines at the time 

US Senator David Rice Atchison said he would see Kansas in hell before he would let it become a free state.  And yes, he knew that 90% of the people in Kansas were anti-slavery. There were only 2-- remember this -- only 2 slaves in Kansas, according to the official census.

A few men in Washington DC (Atchison, Jeff Davis, and Stephen A Douglas) put a plan in motion to hurriedly get Kansas in the Union as a slave state.  

In 1856 Jeff Davis  sent a US Senator to Kansas. None other than David Rice Atchison, who had passed the Kansas Act..



"To be perfectly free"

Atchison and Douglas, both US Senators at the time, sold the Kansas Act as legislation to give Kansas citizens the "perfect right"  to be free to decide their own "institutions"  meaning, of course, slavery .

Over and over Douglas sold this -- Atchison sold it -- everyone who pushed it sold this -- as just a way to give freedom the people of Kansas.

Douglas said repeatedly there was no way Kansas would ever vote for slavery.  Nineteen out of twenty people there he said (correctly)  were against slavery.

The climate, he said stupidly, was not fit for cotton, and so slaves would be of no use there anyway.

Kansas was North of a line --36/30 -- that was part of Missouri Compromise. The South demanded the Missouri Compromise just a few years earlier.  They, in the Missouri Compromise, doubled the land for slavery.  

But now -- they wanted Kansas, California and Oregon. 

How to get Kansas, California and Oregon?   Enter the Kansas Act.  

But sell the Kansas Act as "freedom" .



Yet immediately - within a day or two apparently -- of passing Kansas Act, guess who goes to Kansas and there starts to terrorize, later to kill, to spread slavery?

Atchison -- the very Senator who, with Douglas, got the Kansas Act passed.

More, Atchison actually boasts bout the killings in 1856, and leads a group of paid men to invade Lawrence.  Atchison had made it a law that public speech, and newspapers,  that were anti-slavery were illegal.  (All Southern states had much the same laws -- laws against "incendiary speech"  that might "disatisfy a slave".

The prevailing myth/ lie in all stave states was that slaves were "the most contented laborers on earth".  Only the "lie of Satan"  whispered into their ear made slaves unhappy and even rebellious.

Therefore, no one could speak or write in a way that would be "incendiary" about slavery.   Actually, they found out whites would be against slavery too, if there were free speech about it.

Even preachers could be arrested and tortured for preaching against slavery

Atchison and his men created what is now called "bogus legislature"  and passed these laws.

On the basis of these laws, Atchison raised the 800 -1000 men, paid by Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War,  and arrested hundreds of men, and invaded Lawrence to kill anyone there, he boasted, who dared get in the way of destroying the newspaper there.

Remember, that Senator, Atchison, was Douglas's business and political partner.  They got the Kansas Act passed.

They claimed it was to let the people of Kansas to be "perfectly free" to decide the issue of slavery themselves.

Sound like that's perfectly free?


KANSAS ACT -- supposedly the Kansas Act was going to allow the people of Kansas to be "perfectly free"  to "decide it's own institutions".   Meaning - free to vote slavery up or down.

But just the opposite happened. Atchison Douglas and Jeff Davis personally took the Kansas Act to the President at the time  (President Pierce) . They told him Kansas Act was to let the people in Kansas decide "popular soverity"  they said.

But Atchison personally (remember this) Atchison personally then rushed to Kansas, and there starts to terrorize, later to kill and torture, to stop people from voting against slavery, and even stop them from speaking in public against slavery.  Atchison and his men formed a "bogus legislature"  which made it a crime to publish anti slavery newspapers.

When some Kansas citizens (remember 90% or more were against slavery) still published anti-slavery newspaper, Atchison hired over 500 (maybe over 1000) men to invade Lawrence Kansas.

See Atchison speech to his paid killers. LINK ATCHISON SPEECH H ERE

Read the entire speech yourself -- it has text version and hand written at the time verison. You will learn a lot.

For lazy folks, here are some clips.... like Atchison boasting Confederate flat was red for the color of blood they would spill to spread slavery .

Atchison only stopped his killing sprees in Kansas when he ran out of money from Jeff Davis. Most of the hired killers then went home.  Also, Atchison told them Kansas men were cowards and would not fight back.


 But during the Civil War itself, Confederates repeatedly invaded Lawrence Kansas and burned it to the ground, for disobeying Atchison.


Jeff Davis on Dred Scott Decision in his book " Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"  explained that Dred Scott decision changed everything.  They were willing to give up slavery, he implied, if the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Everyone, he claimed, agreed to obey the decision no matter what is was. (Not true at all) 

 See Jeff Davis full book here -- go to page 83

  The question was a question of PROPERTY said Davis. Whether the slaveholder should be permitted to go, with his slaves  with his property of any sort.     

The Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not human beings -- not persons - but property.  

Therefore, because blacks are property -- and anyone can take personal property (such as dogs, cattle, wagons) into any place, so to slave owners are protected to take their property anyplace.

(Negro "servants" = property.)
An important point to remember about lunatic Jeff Davis -- he used Dred Scott to justify sending killers to Kansas in 1856.  But the Supreme Court did not rule on Dred Scott until 1857.   If you are a piece of shit and believe the Supreme Court can declare millions of people are not human beings (not persons)  still, Davis used this vile decision as justification for killing before the decision ever came out.

That's the kind of scum sucking pigs you are dealing with, re Jeff Davis, Atchison, and Stephen A Douglas. 




No, not just Kansas before the Civil War supposedly started in 1861.  Southern leaders boasted they were at war -- and killing - since 1856.

They made it very clear in their own speeches and headlines -- they were at war (THE TRUE ISSUE) was the spread of slavery.

Not keeping slavery in the South -- SPREADING slavery to wherever they wanted it to spread, including the North......

The biggest bullshit in US history is that the Civil
War was fought by North to end slavery.   It was worse than that. 

It is important - vital -- to understand that even after Kansas was a free state, Jefferson Davis and the South demanded in War Ultimatums that Kansas be a slave state.

Equally important to understand, is that the "logic" used by Southern leaders to issue War Ultimatums to spread slavery into Kansas, is the same "logic"  Jefferson Davis used to justify his boasts of "force of arms" to have the entire US be a slave nation.

Lincoln repeatedly, emphatically, over 100 times, explained this in his speeches.   We will be one thing -- all slave, or all free (states).  By the "logic" of Kansas Act and Dred Scott, there was no longer any way to keep slavery from all states.

You may think this is some "academic nicety"  or something for lawyers or history professors to dispute.  Oh hell no.

This was the basis of the Civil War.  And we should have always taught it that way, because the leaders on both sides spoke and acted on that basis. It was not academic, it was not theoretical. It was blood and death, and it almost went the other way.

The civil war was fought - and started -- by Southern leaders to SPREAD slavery.   Not keep it, not maintain it, but to spread it.

S P R E A D.  Spread it.   Like Jeff Davis own amazing "address to the people of the Free States on Jan 5, 1863.  Davis made it clear, in his rage about the Emancipation Proclamation, that he will spread slavery by force of arms to the North.

Davis "Address"  has been dismissed as his furious reaction to Lincoln's EP.   But this was not anything new whatsoever -- you just have not heard of it.  We do not teach Southern leaders boasting and killings to spread slavery -- and how they made it very clear at the time that was their goal, their right, and their reason for violence: SPREADING SLAVERY. 

How do we know? 

 They boasted of it, at the time.'

From 1856 on, Southern leaders boasted of killing to spread slavery.   Not kinda, not sorta, not in a way.

But the US Presidents then -- Polk, Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, either blatantly helped the South spread slavery, or refused to do anything to stop the killing to spread slavery.  In fact Taylor and Pierce both helped arrest and enabled the killing of people in Kansas who dared try to speak (that's right, speak) against slavery.   Jefferson Davis was actually responsible for that outrage, he hustled Taylor then Pierce to allow or send killers to Kansas. JEFFERSON DAVIS SENDS KILLERS TO KANSAS

  Lincoln getting elected meant the North could finally fight back.

   Which is why Southern leaders stayed in the Union, as long at the President was helping them, or too punk ass to stop them.

  Remember this --the South had a five year head start --killing to spread slavery, and they boasted of it. 


1856 - boasting of killing to spread slavery, by Southern leaders. Remember that, they were boasting, and they were killing. They were boasting about the killing.

Most people think the Civil War started in 1861. Big mistake -- Southern leaders knew when it started, because they boasted about starting it.

And they made it very clear WHY they started killing.  This should be in every US text book. 

It should be. So too, Southern War Ultimatums and boasts about killing to spread slavery, should be in all US text books. 

According to US Grant, Davis had long urged Southern boys to violence, promising them the Northern soldiers were cowards.   Same thing happened in Kansas, Southern leaders assured their paid thugs, that Northern men would not fight back. They were wrong.

The South fought to SPREAD slavery, boasted out the ass about it, and started killing and torturing, calling it war, in 1856.

US Senator said Nebraska and Kansas should "sink into hell" rather than be free states,   because free states next to Missouri would be too close.  Kansas and Nebraska, though 95% of the citizens there were against slavery, MUST accept slavery.

Atchison getting weapons for his killing spree, soon to follow.

Southern War ultimatums -- Southern speeches boasting of killing, calling it a war to spread slavery,  was a BFD 1856 on.

Southern leaders called it a war -- maybe they should know, they were doing the killing and invading, then.

Not a dispute -- a WAR.  And Atchison promised endless killing, unless slavery was spread to the Pacific.  

This is 1856 -- before Lincoln even ran for US Senate.

So if anyone tells you Lincoln's election caused the Civil War -- they don't know the facts.  Southern leaders already at war, already called it war, and already boasting of their killings, and their goals, before Lincoln even ran for Senate.

The leaders - Southern's top leaders -- boasted, remember that, boasted, they were at war to spread slavery, or justified the killings and tortures committed by other Southern leaders doing the killing.



Not to keep slavery.  But to SPREAD slavery to the rest of the US (including the North, according to Jeff Davis himself)

US Senator who got Kansas Act passed, then immediately went to Kansas, and started his kill sprees.  David Rice Atchison.


Atchison worked officially for Jefferson Davis, then US Secretary of War.  His right hand man, Stringfellow, in his own publications, boast of killing, torturing, and hanging, anyone against slavery.



Atchison was not "just some guy" -- he was the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed in the first place, he and Stephen A Douglas.

Kansas Act, for those of you who don't know, was sold then, and refereed to now, as a way to "have Kansas citizens perfectly free to decide their institutions themselves".

Institutions -- they meant slavery.  And Kansas rejected slavery, then and later, by 90% and 95% votes.  

But Atchison did all in his physical power- - with paid killers -- to not only stop anyone from voting against slavery, Atchison rushed to Kansas, the day after he passed Kansas Act, and there immediately started his violence against anyone who even spoke against slavery.

In fact, US Senator Charles Sumner spoke exactly of this -- of Atchison passing Kansas Act, then rushing to KS to terrorize and kill to stop votes and stop speech against slavery -- in the famous two day speech he gave, and was then almost beat to death for it, beat on the Senate floor.

Why the fuck don't people know Atchison is the guy who passed Kansas Act, and Sumner was beaten on the Senate floor for talking about it, detailing the killings and tortures by Atchison's men?

Because no one told them.  There are college courses about Sumner's "Crimes Against Kansas Speech"  which hilariously omit the almost endless details Sumner included, about the details of what Atchison did. 

Look how "historian"  Bruce Catton tells the public about Sumner's speech about Atchison and the killings by him and his men.  "Routine Criticism"   Not one word -- not one -- about Atchison being the guy who passed Kansas Act, nor about Atchison rush to Kansas,  things Atchison himself boasted of. 

Unless you know what Atchison boasted of -- Atchison boasted of things that Sumner accused him off -- you can't know how goofy "historians"  like Catton were, to not even mention Atchison, except in vague, odd terms.   Instead, Catton and his protege, James McPherson, essentially adopt Jeff Davis side in the matter, because they never tell you of Southern leaders boasting, and killing, and calling it a war to spread slavery,  long before Lincoln was even a candidate for President.

If you don't know Southern War Ultimatums, the two "historians" to blame, are Bruce Catton and James McPherson, ironically. 

Outdoing even Stringfellow, Atchison boasted of continued killing, till slavery spread to Pacific-- including spreading to states that were already free states.

That's right -- Southern leaders, official leaders (including Davis) did in fact, boast about spreading slavery in free states.

What is kept out of all text books in the US -- The SOUTH fought it to SPREAD slavery for GOD, got beat, and lost slavery entirely.  And their own leaders boasted of it, at the time, until they lost.

Atchison burned all his papers that he could find, when it became obvious the South was going to lose.  But this one remains -- his report to Davis about progress of killings, shootings, and burning to death, of  those in Kansas who were against slavery, long before the Civil War supposedly started in 1861.

The South, officially, per leaders that bragged of it, were ALREADY killing and calling it war, 1856 on.


Killing, calling it a war for "the entire South" -- US Senator Davis Rice Atchison, 1856.

Atchison worked officially for Jeff Davis.  And he boasted of killing for the entire South.   Remember that.   

Jeff Davis -- himself -- in his own papers (there are no doubts whatsoever this is Jeff Davis, he had it in his own papers, and are officially part of his papers..)

Davis promised perpetual slavery -- and ordered all blacks ever freed to be place back on slave status, forever.  Plus, he "looked forward" to the time when by "force of arms"  the North will have slavery, too.

Read it. It's fucking important. 

Davis speaking of killing in North to force slavery there -- big surprise to you?  Should not be, Davis was proud of it, it's in his own papers -- and in context.

 Davis was proud of it, then, in 1863.

And he had already sent killers to Kansas from 1856 on, to force slavery into Kansas and all of the West.   Oh, no one told you that either? Surprise surprise.  Leave a few "details" out -- by accident? 

Like others, the Vice President of Confederacy made it very clear why they created CSA -- to spread slavery for GOD, as punishment to the black race, for biblical sins.  This was not just ONE speech, in the heat of excitement. He gave this speech at least five times to cheering crowds, and later in life, confirmed that was his speech, and those where his words.

And they bragged out the ass about it, until they lost. They did not admit it, they bragged out the ass, they were killing, they were at war, and they would  not stop, until slavery was spread in all the US -- including in states that were already free states.




This Southern General was already in Kansas, killing to spread slavery.  Oh, yeah and he was bragging about that. 

Bet no one told you about Southern War Ultimatums.   No, they did not.


Bet no one told you a US Senator already went to Kansas, became "General of Law and Order" in Kansas, and then bragged about killing to spread slavery.

And that was BEFORE Lincoln even took office.

Bet you also don't know that when Southern leaders were boasting of their War Ultimatums in May of 1861, Kansas was already a free state.  95%  of Kansas whites had rejected slavery, in a vote.

And became a free state, before Lincoln even got there.

That did not stop Southern leaders from demanding Kansas "Accept and respect slavery".

Oh yeah, there is much more.


Answer: This man, David Atchison,  and you never heard of him. 


Lincoln said repeatedly he got back into politics because of Kansas Nebraska Act, which was a rude to violently force slavery into Kansas.

US Senator David Rice Atchison not only bragged he got Kansas Act passed (see his bragging about it below), he also bragged about killing to spread slavery.  Atchison, according to another Senator (Charles Sumner)  immediately left the Senate after he passed Kansas Act, and went to Kansas to force slavery down the throats of free soilers. 

WHile Stephen A Douglas said he wrote the Kansas Act, and Atchison was only his partner, events showed Atchison was right, he passed KS Act, and he personally went to Kansas, where he became Jeff Davis official "General of Law and Order" of Kansas.


The loud, proud and violent war to spread slavery, bragged about at the time, by Southern leaders.

 Answer:   Southern leaders-- including a US Senator --  were killing to spread slavery into Kansas, and bragging that they would continue to kill, until they had slavery all the way to the Pacific.


 I was so stunned to learn this kind of thing -- and I got it from Southern newspapers, Southern books, Southern speeches.   I did not find this in US text books, or by any author at all.

It was no secret-- hell, it was HEADLINES in Richmond paper in 1861, that the "TRUE ISSUE" -- their "ultimatum" as they called it, was for the spread of slavery into Kansas, even though Kansas citizens had rejected slavery 95% and became a free state by then.

What else did they have to do, to make this known?  Rent billboard space in front of James McPhersons house?   Send daily reminders to Bruce Catton?   Invite Eric Foner to open a damn Southern paper bragging of it, at the time?

My hobby for ten years now has been reading Southern newspapers and books, and documents.  It took about 100 "WTF" reactions -- before I realized, shit, why dont we cover what Southern newspapers, speeches and documents boasted of, at the time?

US Senator David Rice Atchison claimed the happiest days of his life, were spent killing to spread slavery.  

He also bragged he got Kansas Act passed, and Charles Sumner said Atchison got Kansas Act passed. The way Foner, Catton and other "historians" discuss the Kansas Act, you could have no clue -- none, zero, that the guy who got Kansas Act passed, then left DC, personally rushed to Kansas, and started his terrors out there.

And Atchison boasted of it!!  He literally took out ads in various papers to get more "Southern men"  for the "war" he was waging in Kansas.   Kind of a big deal, that the man who gets Kansas Act passed, then rushes to Kansas to force slavery down the throats of Kansas citizens.

There isn't 10 people in the US that know that.  In fact, many "scholars" just assume "Kansas troubles"  means both sides were extremist. Bullshit, Atchison went to Kansas,  hired 200, then 1000 men, then said he would hire 5000, to kill every god damn abolitionist in Kansas, and spread slavery to all of the West.

He did not admit it -- he BRAGGED about it.  What the hell else could he do, before "historians" would at least tell the public what the hell was going on?

Please, email me, and tell me what Atchison could do more to make this known?  And -- why the hell is it glossed over, and not even mentioned in US text books.  More, why have "historians" not  made it clear.

Worse -- much worse -- "historians" like Foner, McPherson, Catton, actually adopt Jeff Davis pathological narrative, which is baseless and false. 

Remember, Atchison was a US Senator.  He worked for Jeff Davis. He bragged he got Kansas Act passed. He bragged he would kill to spread slavery to all the West -- and he tried.  He was paid by Jefferson Davis.  His men were paid by Jefferson Davis,then Secretary of War.

And these "historians" never told you, much less, made it clear.

 This is a letter he sent to Jeff Davis, his official boss.

 Maybe there are historians who cover this, maybe there are text books that go into it.

But I have never seen them.   And once I learn things like this, I checked. I checked Catton, McPherson, Foner, and others.

I checked by google, by going to libraries,  it made no sense to me.   Things Southern newspapers and leaders boasted of -- like Southern War Ultimatums -- simply did not appear, except in Southern speeches, Southern papers, Southern books, at the time or soon after the Civil War.


Jefferson Davis insisted everything Atchison did -- including killing and terrorizing and arresting folks for publishing anti-slavery newspapers in Kansas  -- was "Constutitutionally required"   because Dred Scott decision ordered the federal government to protect slavery.

You were never told this - in any candid way. A few euphemisms here, even Orwellian double speak there.

Jeff Davis sent Atchison to Kansas-- officially. Got reports from him, paid him, paid his men.  And no one mentions that?

They sure as hell mentioned it, at the time. 

Lincoln had to deal with reality -- not the euphemisms we are taught.

 Southern leaders were quite proud of it then.

 Remember US Senator David Rice Atchison reports to Jeff Davis about his "progress" in killing abolitionist in Kansas, 1855 

Southern newspapers -- in May of 1861 - were boasting of their War Ultimatums.    No one was surprised -- thousands of Southern men were already in Kansas, employed by Jeff Davis and David Rice Atchison, already killing to spread slavery.


Contrary to the bullshit your text book tells you, Dred Scott decision was NOT about citizenship for blacks.   It was, as you will see, about whether blacks were human beings, persons.

No, they are NOT persons for purposes of the Constitution, said the Court.   They are "inferior beings"   and "so inferior"  they were not persons.  They were property. 

The US Supreme Court ordered slavery "protected" even in Kansas, where 95% of the citizens would reject slavery by vote.    That did not matter, according to Jefferson Davis.  

People today think the Civil War started in 1861. Not really.  According to Southern leaders themselves, they started the war in 1856.

Im not telling you anything except what THEY boasted about, in their own speeches, their own books, their own newspapers, their own documents. 

Remember that as you read this.   Southern leaders THEMSELVES bragged out the ass, repeatedly, incontext, they were killing to spread slavery, and that was their goal -- against (yes against) state's rights and against (yes, against) popular soverighty.

Not sorta. Not kinda. Not "in a way".   That's what they were doing.  

And they were proud of it -- till they lost.


Answer And this: 

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

And this  

Lincoln's House Divided speech -- though Lincoln spoke carefully and diplomatically -- was about Southern leaders clear "machinery" to spread slavery against state's rights, and against the will of the people.

Kansas Act was the first part of the "machinery"  according to Lincoln.

Guess who got Kansas Act passed, and bragged he was later killing to spread slavery?

We show you his speech -- it was David Rice Atchison.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Atchison was not playing games.  He had just met his Texas men -- as his speech indicates -- and immediately made his men promise to kill without mercy "do you promise to draw blood"?

Atchison spoke of the "crime" committed by the people they would kill -- the "damn dogs" had allowed speech against slavery in a newspaper.

Yes, the crime these "dogs" committed was not publishing a anti-slavery newspapers, these folks just allowed it.

Let that sink in your fucking head.  People in that city has ALLOWED an anti slavery newspaper to continue after Atchison ordred it shut down.

The punishment of the crime -- according to Atchison -- was death or prison. If they resisted, death.

Indeed, that was against the law in Kansas -- a law Atchison personally created.  So he was technically correct, those who operated the anti slavery newspapers were breaking his law.

And the penalty -- if Atchison caught them and they resisted -- was death.

No one ever told you that, did they?


Never mind that Kansas was already a state, and already voted 95% against slavery ---  Jefferson Davis demanded the spread of slavery there.

In all your life-- has anyone told you Jefferson Davis demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, AFTER Kansas became a free state?

Hell  no.  They should have told you.  Davis wrote this in his own book  -- go read the damn book. He explained the resistance to that spread of slavery, specifically into Kansas, was the "intolerable grievance."

While Davis personally did not kill and terrorize in Kansas, he sent his close friend, US Senator David Rice Atchison, in 1854.  Davis named Atchicon "General of Law and Order."   Davis wrote that whatever Atchison did was "Constitutionally required"  by virtue of Dred Scottt decision  that ordered the "protection of slavery".

David Rice Atchison  declared war on the USA in 1855 --not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.

That was HIS word -- war.  And he carried the war, he said "for the entire South".

What was his goal?  He made that clear, and no one was surprised.   From 1820-1850, virtually everything was about the spread of slavery, including the Mexican war, including the "Compromise" of 1820 and 1850.

As Lincoln once said "What Compromise?".

He meant, slave power demanded the spread of slavery in 1820, and then 1850, both times got it. 

But then, in 1854, they demanded something too much -- the spread of slavery into Kansas and beyong, even though the overwhelming % of citizens there did not want slavery.

What most people do not know -- sadly, even "history majors"  miss this -- Southern leaders quit any pretense of "states rights" and popular soverighty when Kansas whites rejected slavery.   

As Lincoln pointed out repeatedly, especially in "House Divided Speech"  the South had built "machinery"  starting with Kansas Act (passed by David Atchison, according to Charles Sumner and Atchison both) and then backed up by Dred Scott decision that blacks are not human beings, (not persons) but property.

Everyone in the US knew about this basic impass -- Southern leaders extreme and violent efforts to spread slavery, focused on Kansas and then promises of spreading it to the entire West.   And Lincoln was exactly right -- because Southern leaders BRAGGED about it. They didn't hint, they bragged they would spread slavery, against states rights, against the will of the people, and indeed they did cite Kansas Act, and did cite Dred Scott, as the "logic" of their vile argument.

This is the basic thing missing in our US text books. Teachers don't seem to grasp it -- but 95% of white males in Kansas did not want slavery, and fought against it, and voted against it.  

Southern leaders sent killers there -- yes they did.  

David Rice Atchison, a US Senator who got Kansas Act passed (he bragged about that, too) went to Kansas to lead them.

Oh you heared a watered down version, yes. You heard of "Trouble in Kansas"  for an entire paragraph or two in high school.   They did not tell you about Southern War Ultimatums.  They left out David Rice Atchison and much more.  

Your text book made it seem like "radicals" on both sides "could not compromise".   In fact, Shelby Foote used that phrase, as if those bad old folks who did not want slavery just "would not compromise".

How the hell do you compromise with people trying to kill  you, who brag about using terror, who demand not just slavery but demand also the suppression of speech against slavery.

Yes, Atchison demanded newspapers stop writing against slavery -- and made it a crime to publish newspapers against slavery.

Yes, he did. 

 How the fuck do you compromise?  Enough bullshit on Kansas already.  People then knew about this -- knew it well.  Why the fuck have we watered it down?

In a speech to his Texas Men, on their invasion of Kansas, Atchison made it clear    Jefferson Davis paid Atchison and the Texas men.     Jefferson Davis and President Pierce backed Atchison, by the way.    The people in Kansas were attacked from within -- by Atchison -- while President Peirce and Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, not only paid Atchison and the Texas men, but helped Atchison arrest those who dared to resist Atchison.  

Atchison boasted the men would be "well paid" by Davis.  Plus, they could keep what they stole from victims houses.

Hanging men for being suspected pro-Union in Texas.


Atchison burned his papers, but this one escaped the fire... Atchison reporting to Davis, his official boss, about killing in Kansas, and  the progress there. 

Atchison promised to "kill every damn abolitionist dog" -- these "dogs" below ran from the paid killers invading Lawrence under Atchison's orders, and lived to tell about it.

Atchison made fun of them running away.

Robert Toombs, Secretary of State under Davis in CSA, brought crowds to cheers, declaring the white race was doomed, if they could  not spread slavery into Kansas and beyond.


So no one one at all surprised then when Richmond newspapers boasted that the spread of slavery into Kansas (by force) was "THE TRUE ISSUE"

Northern papers reprints part of Southern War Ultimatums from Richmond papers -- and points out, if Lincoln obeyed this ultimatum, slavery would be legal and unvaoidable everywhere in the US, North and South.

New York newspaper reprinted the Southern War Ultimatums, and suggested Lincoln obey, it was not worth a war -- the South promised war and was already delivering it.

But Lincoln could not obey -- the utlimatum idiotically would force LINCOLN and the North to force slavery into its own free state of Kansas!  

Lincoln was not about to force slavery into Kansas because these macho duck slave power boys demanded it. 







From Jeff Davis own book, explaining how Dred Scott said blacks are not persons, as excuse to push slavery into Kansas.
Davis "forgets" to mention Kansas rejected slavery by a 98% vote.

NO one -- not the people of Kansas, not Congress, and not the Territorial legislature, no matter the vote of 95% or not -- can keep slavery out of Kansas, because, as Davis explained, Dred Scott decision said so.



Remember, this is in the decision itself...

No one told you this, did they?    Nope.  No one ever told  you that over and over, in a Supreme Court decision, slave owners on the USSC emphatically declared blacks are inferior.

This is not in any US text book, in this candid way, unless they throw the entire decision in.  No text book points this out as central to the decision, or the Civil War.

Now, look at the DRED SCOTT ORDER, their summary decision from Taney.    Slaves are inferior and therefore property, not persons.


You'd think your high school or college teachers and books would mention this -- it does not get more basic, as you will see. The South used this to demand the spread of slavery, and they quoted from, and bragged about, this decision to make their demands.

SO it's as important as anything else --probably the most important single thing in history of slavery leading up to the Civil War.

And it's a good bet, you never heard of it, in this way.

That's what Davis was talking about, when he said this:




Votes against slavery did not matter- because slavery was now protected by the Supreme Court, in Dred Scott.

THIS is exactly -- precisely -- what LIncoln was saying in every Lincoln Douglas debate.   You can not possibly miss that if you read the Lincoln Douglas debates.   See this ....

Stephen Douglas explains that Dred Scott means blacks are inferior and are property -- not persons.


Southern newspaper bragged they had warned that the election of anyone against the spread of slavery was a "declaration of war" against the South, and would be taken as such.


Idiotically  our US text books, and "historians" from Bruce Catton to James McPherson have never made any of this clear.

Did any of these "historians" ever tell you that  the US Senator who got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas and started killing?

Hell no.

Did anyone even mention  US Senator was David Rice Atchison got Kansas Act Passed, then went to Kansas and started terrorizing and killing to spread slavery?


Oh, McPherson and others mention Atchison -- and write such drivel as "Atchison urged his constitutients to invade Kansas and vote".  

Atchison "constituents" ?  Try paid killers.    Urged?   He paid them, and made them promise to kill.  

Vote?  He didn't say one damn word about voting in the speech and letters we show -- he was bragging about killing and terrorizing.

So yeah, McPherson and others have watered this down to useless drivel.


With Jeff Davis as Secretary of War, the people of Kansas could get no help from Washington and President Pierce. In fact, Peirce and Jeff Davis had people in Kansas arrested -- remember, David Rice Atchison was officially their "General of Law and Order".

The furor over Kansas was defening back east.   By use of the internet of the day -- telegraph, and newspapers - the public in the North quickly learned who was killing who, and why.

You don't know --but the public knew then. Stephen A Douglas, who origanlly helped Atchison in his killing sprees and covered for him, was nearly attacked --he was hung in effigy, and his train surrounded by citizens demanding he explain his support of Atchison.  Douglas had been part of the "Kansas Act"  fraud, and had no choice now, but to openly repudiate LeCompton Constitution,  which was a fraud by his partner, Atchison.

That's another thing "historians" like McPherson seem to gloss over, but they know well.



This was common knowledge at the time -- in fact Charles Sumner, the Senator that was beaten on Senate floor, was talking about this -- about Atchison passing Kansas Act, about Atchison then going to Kansas and killing and terrorizing.

Did any teacher ever tell you who Atchison was talking about? Hell no, they probably have no clue.   He was talking about Atchison.

There is much more you never hear of -- Southern War Ultimatums.  Has any US text book ever mentioned Southern War Ultimatums?   Hell no.  But they were headlines in Southern newspapers at the time (Richmond).  

And Jeff Davis himself wrote that the resistance to the spread of slavery into Kansas (even though 95% of the white males in KS voted against slavery)  was the "intolerable grievance.
Davis didn't give a shit if people in Kansas rejected slavery -- he claimed Dred Scott decision that blacks are not persons was enough- - Kansas could not keep out property. Blacks were property not persons.

Did your history teacher even tell you THAT?


Lincoln was not the only one to point it out -- that the "machinery" of the South,  namely Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision -- meant that slavery would be everywhere.  The killings in Kansas, led by the man that got Kansas Act passed, was proof positive of that -- 

But you never heard even that much did you?  Your history teacher probably does not either.  Certainly McPherson, Catton, Foner, never took time to tell you.  But Lincoln knew.

And David Rice Atchison -- the man who got Kansas Act passed, then went to Kansas to terrorize -- was proud of it. He did not admit it, he bragged out the ass about it.  He bragged both about his role in passing Kansas Act, and in killing to spread slavery.

And he was not unique. 




Not the watered down bullshit in our Southern edited "history" text books. 

Glossed over in US history text books, but extremely well known then -- Southern leaders bragged about killing to spread slavery, and boasted they would keep killing till they had slavery all over the Western USA -- including slavery into states already admitted to US as free states.

US text book companies, controlled by Texas and therefore subject to approval by Southern school boards, the US public has never been told about the insane, violent, and religious lunacy of Southern demands to spread slavery for God.

And their killing spreeds, and bragging about killing, to spread slavery.

Furthermore, at the time, they boasted of it....   See for yourself

Here is from a Southern newspaper -- Richmond Enquirer -- May 9 1861, boasting that the "TRUE ISSUE"  was the spread of slavery into Kansas.  Just as Davis had said himself was the "intolerable issue".

New York papers ran the Ultimatums two days later, and suggested Lincoln obey -- there was already enough dead in Kansas, why not let Kansas fight slavery if it wants, lets stay out of it.

Did your teacher ever tell you about Southern War Ultimatums?

Hell no. He-she probably never knew.

They have never appeared in any US text book.

But New York papers reprinted those War Ultimatums, and suggested Lincoln obey.


 Lincoln could not obey the ultimatums -- Kansas had already voted repeatedly against slavery and was now a US state!

Besides, Lincoln had one unwavering principle -- no spread of slavery.  Yet the Southern War Ultimatums were that LINCOLN spread slavery, that Lincoln force the spread of slavery!!

They knew, of course, Lincoln was not going to do that.  This was more macho posturing than anything else.

The point is, Southern leaders issued the War Ultimatums and no one was surprised. Remember that -- no one said "Uh, are you kidding".

Southern leaders did not kid around.

Davis himself -- remember this  -- had taken part in the killings in Kansas, because he sent David Rice Atchison there -- officially. 

Jeff Davis not only sent Atchison to KS, he paid for Atchison's Texas men.  Atchison first used about 200 Missouri men (he paid them)   But that was not enough men.

Atchison got Texas men -- and bragged to them they will be "well paid"  and can have whatever they steal.

Reall -- see his speech.

No, Davis did not go to Kansas to kill with his own hands -- he sent his good friends, one of whom was fellow US Senator David Atchison. And he paid for the killers, according to Atchison himself. 

That's why, when Vice President Alexander Stephens gave a series of eight speeches -- bragging the Confederacy was based on God's wish to punish the black race-- no one was surprised.   This was part of their BS for years, only Stephens went on and on about this, in great detail, for hours, in eight different speeches.

Davis said slavery was a “Divine Gift of God” and that “God delivered the Negro unto us.”

Slavery was “sealed by the blood of Christ.” The “great moral truth” that “God ordained slavery” was the very basis of the the Confederacy said its vice president, Stephens.
The defense of slavery had to be extreme, to the point of religious lunacy,  because in your head, slave owners HAD to justify it. 

You don't justify torture, rape, sellling children, whipping (yes, slavery was all that)  unless you have a powerful excuse in your head, so they created those religious bullshit excuses.

No - your history teacher likely has no clue how rabid the Southern defense of slavery was -- no one teaches it, other than a few watered down quips.

Nor does your history teacher probably know Atchison even was, much less that, according to Atchison himself, and Charles Sumner, Atchison did indeed get Kansas Act passed, then did indeed to to Kansas to kill and terrorize.

Oh, you didn't hear about this in your text book, edited by Southern School boards?  Surprise surprise. Atchison brags he got Kansas Act passed, and brags he is killing and terrorizing to spread slavery.

One of Atchison's reports to Davis about "progress" of hanging and killing survives.  Atchison burned the others.


Atchison was not just an energetic killer, who bragged openly about killing every abolitionist in Kansas, before the Civil War.  

He was also personal friends of Stephen A Douglas -- Douglas and Atchison were both US Senators.  

Here is what happened to men in Texas -- who dared to vote against secession.

In a mass hanging of white men, Texas found 14 men who voted against secession.  They tried 14, and hung 7, let 7 go.

But later that day, they decided to find those 7 they let go, and hang them too.

So they did.  Do you get the idea yet, the hatred and violence were as extreme as you can imagine? 



Douglas and Atchison got the "Kansas" bill passed, which they both spoke of as "simple fairness".   Kansas, and all the West, was off limits to slavery, as was most of the American continent, by virtue of Lousiana Purchase and the Northwest Ordinance of 1878.

As many people alledged at the time -- and were proven correct --Douglas and ATchison "unlocked" Kansas for a vote on slavery, then Dred Scott "locked the door" so no one could vote against slavery!


 Stupidly, our history books often show Southern leaders with Stephen A Douglas wanted popular soverighty, let "the people decide".

Nothing was further from the truth --as events proofed. 95% of the citizens in Kansas were against slavery.   Yet Atchison went there and personally made sure those folks did not vote, and took 500 paid men with him, to force slavery into Kansas and create a "bogus legislature"  that made it illegal to speak against slaver.


They will open up slavery in the territory, but they had no plan to let people vote AGAINST slavery.



No one was surprised that the first thing Southern leaders did as a new nation, was to issue defacto war ultimatums to the USA? It was Southern papers that called them Ultimatums, and presented the demands as "THE TRUE ISSUE"

Remember -- no one was surprised. Why? 

 Because that war in Kansas was already violent FOR YEARS -- US Senator David Atchison was in Kansas several times, killing -- yes killing -- abolitionist.   His good friend was Stephen A Douglas, they had pushed Kansas Nebraska bill through  -- supposedly to allow voting on slavery in Kansas.

As Lincoln pointed out again, and again -- the claims of Douglas and South's desire for "popular sovereignty" was a scam -- their real goal was to open the west (the entire West) up for slavery, by PRETENDING to want people to vote.  But then, make sure the public can't vote against slavery. Lincoln's House Divided Speech was about this.

Plus -- Southern newspapers and documents were already filled with promises of war, if slavery was not spread into Kansas, that was old hat, that was not even news.  Infact, Southern leaders had already claimed for months that the white race would be "exterminated"  if slavery was not SPREAD.

You don't know it, because our text books have been largely edited to remove the insane violent crazy truths about Southern heroes.  YOu will never hear, for example, that Lee had slave girls whipped, or that Davis was already helping sociopaths like Atchison to kill and terrorize in Kansas.    So it would come to a shock to you that SOuthern leaders demanded the spread of slavery in Kansas -- but they had already been demanding that by violence for six years.

This might seem bizzare to you now, the white race would be exterminated?   Just by stopping the SPREAD of slavery?

That only seems odd now, because you never heard of it. That was a common refrain at the time.  See this official Southern document --

Here  language, from the copy in library of Congress -- the language I am talking about, is in the ORDER.  Remember that. 

Slaves are not persons - they are property -- officially declared so by the Court. 

AND -- the Court PLEDGES the government will protect SLAVERY.  

These words -- see the words "recognizes slaves as property"? --those  are crucial.   

See the other words?  Pledges the government to protect it?


Lincoln dealing with lunatic Dred Scott decision __________________________________

Even if a majority of people in Kansas (98% in one vote, it was quite a majority)  did not want slavery, and voted against it,  insisted Jefferson Davis.    

And this is exactly what Davis was writing about, in his own book, when he wrote this 
It -- it the government must protect - is slavery.  Blacks are not, and could not be, persons.    That was his first point --and he took it from the Dred Scott decision.

His second point was that no one could exclude slavery from Kansas.

Congress had no right to exclude slavery -- and slave owners are to be protected. Slavery is to be protected!

And the Court "pledges" the government to protect slavery.  

YOu would think that if the US Supreme Court ruled against states rights  and ordered the government to PROTECT slavery in Kansas, when people voted against it overwhelmingly, that it would be mentioned in a text book.  Every text book.

And remember, Southern leaders shouted about it, bragged about it, used it to justify their demands to spread slavery there.  

North and South newspapers went ballistic, with South bragging about it, and the North accusing the slave owners of vile deception by doing on the Court what was NEVER done before -- issue an order, without any case before it that asked about the issue -- that blacks were not persons, and slavery must be protected.

Dred Scott case was NOT about state's rights to reject slavery.  Everyone assume -- in fact the South bragged - they were all for states rights. 

So when the Dred Scott decision did a complete hachet job on slaves -- make them inferior beings, took away their human being status, and made them "inferior beings"  they basically removed the Declaration of Independence -- all men are created equal.

Why isn't this mentioned in US text books?  Because for 100 years and still today, right now, this minute, Southern slave states school boards  hate and react badly to the truth of what their heroes did.  They don't want books that show Lee had slave girls tortured, or Davis and Southern leaders approved killing of abolitionist in Kansas, or that slave owners resigned US Senate to go kill abolitionist, or that Southerns on US Supreme Court ordered blacks to be considered property, not humans.

That all sounds crazy today -- but the South bragged of it them.

No --it's not mentioned in ANY US text book. We havent found one yet.  If you do, let us know.

SO that 98% vote against slavery -- didn't matter. ( of course Davis isn't going to mention that, so we remind you).   That whole thing about "popular sovereignty" didn't matter, in fact Southern newspapers, that used to claim popular sovereignty to SPREAD slavery, now flipped too -- one newspaper called popular sovereignty "a TRICK OF THE DEVIL.

And of course, the South claimed the people of Kansas could not reject slavery either. That's exactly the opposite, of course, of what they claimed when they thought Kansas would go for slavery.

Southern documents, including war ultimatums, referenced this, that Kansas could NOT keep slavery out!  It sounds all legal and formal, but what they are saying it, no one can keep slavery out of Kansas.

Not Congress, not the people of Kansas -- NO ONE can keep slavery out.  Sound like state's rights to you?  Really?

  Southern leaders at the time bragged out the ass about it candidly at the time. How DARE those people in Kansas reject slavery.  

Who got to decide slavery issue in Kansas?

Notice in all the bullshit pronouncement from Southern leaders -- they always always say this group or that does not get to exclude slavery.

Congress can't exclude slavery -- the people there can't, the official territorial government can't exclude slavery.

Who does decide?   Go on, look in every Southern leaders speech about Kansas. they never, ever, ever mention who gets to decide!

Notice that? I bet you did not.  Every document, every newspaper from the South bragging that Kansas and Congress could not exlude slavery.

 If the people in Kansas can't exclude slavery, if Congress can't exclude slavery -- who can?


The Court, by declaring that blacks are NOT persons,  and that the government will protect slavery, essentially the slave owners on the US Supreme Court decide. 

In fact, no one, ever, according to Southern leaders, could EVER by any legislation, stop any slave owner from "enjoying" Kansas with his slaves.  And further, Kansas MUST pass legislation to protect slavery.   Still think these lying bastards cared about states rights?

Really?  Or do you get it yet, that Southern lying bastards would use any logic, any violence, do anything to spread slavery.

Got that? It's not complicated.  Just say no one can exclude  it -- and get the slave owners on the US court to say slaves are not human beings, but inferior beings, and property,  and then further say government must PROTECT slavery, and it's really the slave owners on the Court who get to decide what Kansas does.

None of the slave owners on the Court were from Kansas, probably never had been there.  But they would decide -- not the territorial government, not people by voting, not Congress.    But that's not how they sell this.

Dred Scott lit the match under the already violent lunatics who insisted God ordained slavery and torture of slavery -- and like the Texas Declaration of Secession said, if you are against slavery, you are against God.  This is what  happened when we mixed religious extremism and government.  Violence happens. This is another reason you won't see stuff like this in Southern approved text books.

In fact, the Senator David Atchison, a slave owner, resigned from the US Senate, and went to Kansas bragging about "killing every abolitionist in Kansas".

Did you know that or not? A US Senator resigns,  goes to Kansas (with several thousand men) to kill abolitionist -- and you never heard of it.  

You never heard of him, admit it.
Bet you never heard of David Atchison.  Bet not 1 person in 50,000 could tell you who he was. He was the US Senator that resigned to go kill every abolitionist in Kansas.  

Atchison was a good personal friend of Stephen A Douglas, and Jeff Davis.  Douglas and Atchison adored each other, spoke highly of each other. Douglas said Atchison had "a heart of gold, a kinder more gentle man did not exist".  

This after Atchison had helped kill dozens of people for being against slavery.  You didn't know about the killings in Kansas did you?  Southern edited text books make it seem a bunch of "extremist" were in Kansas.  Hell, the extremist, were the lunatics out there killing people for being against slavery.  

One guy finally had enough -- John Brown.  When you learn the truth about what SOuthern lunatics were doing in Kansas, you will understand John Brown much better. Right now, Southern edited text books show him as "extremist".,

Today, if a US Senator resigned, to go kill abolitionist in Kansas,  you might hear of it in the news.  And that would be part of history.

If the South had won, Atchison would have been the hero-- killing abolitionist, using his own slave money to do it!  They would have statues of him in front of schools.  He was a hero to the South then.

But you never heard of him, because it's hard to make a hero out of a guy who brags about killing every abolitionist, who leaves the United States Senate to do it.  He sounds crazy to us now, but he was par for the course, for the Southern leaders at the time, only Atchison, unlike Davis, Toombs, and others, actually went someplace and did the killing. The other Southern leaders basically spoke bullshit to crowds to get them stirred up to hate more.

 But this was part of the discourse at the time, it was violent, extreme, and the slavers promised more violence.

See below, the South's own Five Ultimatums, something else you never heard of.  The Five Ultimatums made it clear, the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas was their immediate goal, followed by spread of slavery all the way to Pacific Ocean.

Who said so?  Jefferson Davis, for one, and this guy Aitchison for another, and the entire Confederate Cabinet for another, and the Vice President of Confederacy Alexander Stephens for another.

Didn't know that did you? Never heard that, did you?

Blame your Southern edited text book, see more below.

See the things that don't make it into your "history" text books.

Oh we are told about "Border Ruffians".  Sounds quaint, right. those ruffians!   Actually there were thousands of them, sent to Kansas by slave owner -- no doubt paid.  Atchison bragged he would bring 5000 men next time (he only brought 1700 the first time) to kill ALL the abolitionist.

 And what was HIS logic for killing abolitionist?   I just told you -- the Dred Scott decision was his logic. See below.  Government will PROTECT SLAVERY.

I was surprised to learn about this, and I took all kinds of history courses, read all kinds of history books, and never heard of it this way.  

Here is  how Dred Scott is taught in our schools, and was taught to me.  HERE IS HOW DRED SCOTT IS TAUGHT NOW

Typical high school teacher's explanation -- right here, because this is how it's shown in the text book....

Typically, text books give about two pages concerning Dred Scott the person, and not one sentence, not one word, saying blacks are now officially recognized not as persons, but as property.

Not. One. Word.  Thousands of words about Dred personally, about his wife, where they lived, blah blah blah. And then some bullshit about Congress "cant exclude slavery".

NOT one word how Southerners used this to actually go to Kansas and kill abolitionist. That's exactly what US Senator David Atchison did!  And he took, hired, 1700 men to go with him!  And he promised 5000 more if that didn't work.

No one told you that, did they?  

Lincoln railed against it, candidly, at the time.  (See movie clip below for example of that) Lincoln shouted -- the DRED SCOTT DECISION MAKES PROPERTY OUT OF NEGROES AND NOTHING BUT PROPERTY.

You never heard that did you? You heard a lot of quotes, but unless you read the LIncoln Douglas debates, you won't read that, it's certainly not presented that any US text book.  

 Blacks are NOT persons -- not human beings at all. Literally. And Southerners used that go to Kansas and kill abolitionists. No, you arent told that either, but that is how violent it got, and remember, Southern leaders used Dred Scott as justification for that!

   Think someone would have told you about that in history class right? Well they should have, it's in the damn decision and court order itself.  They used the Dred Scott decision not only to demand the spread of slavery into Kansas BY FORCE, some of them went to Kansas, before the Civil War, and killed abolitionist, and bragged about it.


Remember this -- Jeff Davis and Southern slave owners bragged about it, and Lincoln railed against it.  You never heard it explained bluntly, did you?

Hell no, you didn't. 

 Our text books have white washed this fundamental and massively, all important part of our history. Every child, white or black, tan or green, should learn this basic truth if we are going to teach history.

 Blacks officially declared  NOT HUMAN BEINGS -- but are "Inferior beings"  and as such are "property".

 The Court had no legal right to make up shit like this -- but they did.  By decree, by writing on a piece of paper, in a court order, that blacks are NOT PERSONS BUT ARE PROPERTY.

Don't let anyone  make up some long bullshit, especially telling you it was complicated or about states rights. Bullshit.

It was not complicated. SOuthern leaders got their buddies on USSC to declare  blacks are NOT persons but property, and all  hell broke loose -- from them!  From the SOuthern leaders!  They went ape shit and attacked, almost immediately violence in Kansas escalated out the ass.  On what logic?  On the logic Davis bragged about, on the logic the Taney Court ordered --blacks are not persons, they are property, and the government will protect SLAVERY.

Things I am telling you here, Lincoln spoke against, over and over and over.  In every Lincoln Douglas debate, he exposed it, in his House Divide Speech, he exposed it.   Like this Kansas paper in 1857, Emporia Kansas. 

In speech, after speech, after speech, after speech, Lincoln exposed Dred Scott at length, but he admitted, until we overturn it, it is binding.  Lincoln wanted to appeal the decision and have the Court overturn itself, or pass a Constitutional amendment, which he would do as soon as possible.

See this movie clip  from 1939 movie, it can help you "get it" .  Or spend hours reading Lincolns full speeches.   But for a five minute clip, this does a very good job capturing Lincoln's views, and the view of slave apologist Stephen Douglas.

The clip is form a movie, and this scene is from LIncoln and Douglas debating the Dred Scott decision.  WATCH  Lincoln correctly talk about Dred Scott making property out of  human beings. 

Men who had slave girls whipped, sold children, and promised war to spread slavery against states rights, sure as hell didn't care about state's rights. Every history teacher who says they did is an idiot, and should get slapped.  Hell, Southern leaders promised war --W A  R -- if Kansas exercise states rights or popular sovereignty to stop slavery.

And the court wrote it that way, BECAUSE Kansas whites rejected slavery. There was already a bloody war in Kansas.  Whites were being killed there for being abolitionist.  Slave owners were sending thugs there -- this was in progress when the Taney Court ruled.

It's clear that the Court used the exactly words they did, to excuse more violence in Kansas, to remove any possibility that Kansas voters could decide, and to actually ORDER slavery protected.

Did you see those words? In the decision, is the PLEDGE from Taney that the government will protect slavery!   The only place in the US that needed protection of slavery was Kansas, because it was not in danger anywhere else. 

The map shows Southern state's slave states --Kansas is the next one in dispute.  Southern leaders boasted -- repeatedly - if they could get Kansas, they could get all the rest. Notice that green area?   Whoever got Kansas, gets the rest of it, and leaders on both sides knew it.

By the "logic" of Dred Scott, since no one could exclude slavery by any legislation, in Kansas, no one could exclude slavery anywhere else.  You aren't told that now, but that was what Southern leaders bragged about, and what Lincoln warned against.

Remember that, it was about Kansas, BECAUSE Kansas what short hand for the rest of the country.

" SLAVES ARE NO MORE PERSONS THAN A COW OR A DOG OR A BUCKET OF SHIT"  because of Dred Scott.  Literally, there was no difference, constitutionally, legally, between a dog and a slave, and Southern leaders used that "logic" to "prove" it didn't matter any more what the people in Kansas wanted. 

Thats from Jeff Davis OWN book.  Blacks are not persons (not part of the people, he uses a softer tone than the court), therefore people in Kansas can not stop slavery in Kansas.

And Davis next point -- Kansas must protect slavery, never mind that they voted against it 10-1 and more. (Naturally, Davis does  not point that out).

Sound like state's rights to you? Really?

Sound like popular sovereignty to you?  Really?

But your teacher will give you some bullshit about the South cared about state's rights. No, dumb ass, they didn't.   They used states rights verbiage as excuse, but then hated states rights when states rejected slavery.

And your teacher never told you that, because he or she never heard it either. 


Kansas Nebraska bill was legislation the South demanded -- they needed the territories opened up for slavery.  In 1820, and in 1850, both times, the South demanded the spread of slavery, but agreed not to spread it above the Mason Dixon line.  That's what those "compromises" were -- we get to spread slavery, which was prohibited before.

But once they got those "compromises"  they then wanted MORE.  And Kansas Nebraska bill sounded so reasonable -- let the people vote on it !  That's right, popular sovereignty, let the people decide. Sounds so cool, so democratic, right?

But then Kansas folks voted AGAINST slavery -- and  pissed off Southern leaders like crazy. If you want the blunt history, that's it. Voting against slavery -- that made them crazy.  Suddenly they needed a different excuse.

Unless you understand this -- how Southern leaders again, and again, and again, and again demanded the SPREAD of slavery, and how now, in Kansas they had claimed the people should vote, but then claimed voting didn't matter, will you have an idea of the history of the time.

You wont be able to make sense of any Lincoln speech, unless you know that. You wont be able to spot the bullshit in any Southern document or demand, unless you know that.  


No one told you that, did they?   The US Supreme Court, for the first time in history, issued an order to everyone in the government to do anything -- they had never issued anything like it before -- not once, not even on a small matter.

Here is what a Southern "scholar" wrote at the time...and such language was common, no one was surprised whatsoever. The Dred Scott court simply made it "law" by putting on a piece of paper their order that blacks are NOT persons, NOT PERSONS --- but property.

And further ordered --yes ordered -- that slavery will be protected.

The Taney Court agreed, and Vice President of the Confederacy bragged that blacks were inferior beings. In fact, The Vice President boasted, in a series of eight speeches,  claiming the inferior nature of blacks was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy.

The Taney Court  ruled blacks are NOT PERSONS. They are property.

  Did you see that? NOT PERSONS.   This is not what someone said later to make them look crazy, this is what they said at the time, and Southern leaders boasted about.

So inferior they are not persons, but are property.

Yes BEFORE Dred Scott decision, Southern leaders claimed "state's rights" was the logic to spread slavery.  They claimed Kansas Territory  folks wanted slavery, and passed Kansas Nebraska act to "let them vote" on it.

Suddenly, According Jeff Davis, it didn't matter how people in Kansas voted, because of the Dred Scott decision.  That's what  he was talking about, when he said this...

Davis and Stephen A Douglas had forced the Kansas Bill through, to give people there the right to vote on slavery, or at least they said that's all they wanted - a vote by the people in Kansas.

Sounded so democratic, right?  Watch this

But  Kansas rejected slavery --  repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, one vote was 98% against slavery to 2% for slavery.

So that would be the end of it, right? HELL NO 

Davis and all the others who forced the Kansas bill through, so people in Kansas could vote, did a complete 180 -- suddenly they claimed Kansas voters could NOT decide.

In fact, per Dred Scott decision, no one could decide that --Kansas MUST accept and respect and protect (yes protect) slavery, even though they voted against it, and even though Southerners got Kansas Bill passed, in order to have a vote on slavery!

Less that 10% of college seniors, who considered themselves
"very knowledgable" on the causes of the Civil war, knew that Kansas Nebraska bill was about giving people the right to vote, and less than 5% knew Southern leaders then flipped flopped, and said it didn't matter how they voted, slavery MUST go into Kansas, and Kansas must accept and protect it.

Of course, Lincoln and everyone in the North pointed out the deceptions -- first agreeing to keep slavery out of Kansas, in exchange for spread of slavery into Texas and Missouri, then dumping that agreement for Kansas Bill, and then when Kansas votes against slavery, claiming Kansas could not reject slavery.

That is what Lincoln was dealing with.  And it was all made possible because of the Dred Scott decision, as Davis made clear himself repeatedly.

Davis was PROUD of it, remember that. 

They needed a different "logic" to spread slavery into Kansas (and on to the Pacific Ocean) when Kansas rejected slavery. If you don't grasp that, you won't make sense of what Lincoln said or did.  It's really that basic. 

 The "logic" they came up with, the "inferior being" not human being.  

Read the Lincoln Douglas debates -- that's what they are about. Read Jeff Davis book -- he was bragging about it.  Read Lincoln's House Divided speech, that is what it's about, only Lincoln is exposing it.

So why aren't we taught even the basics of Dred Scott -- that blacks are not persons?  Because our text books gloss over that, as we show below.





In fact, Southern newspapers, after Kansas rejected slavery, called popular sovereignty "a trick of the devil".  Seriously -- you can't make this shit up, crazy and cruel does not begin to describe Southern leaders excuses, tricks, and violence, to spread slavery.

But you hear none of that in schools, because for 100 years or so, Southern book publishers did text books for the entire country, and Texas school boards would not allow the wild and crazy, but basic dirty truths, in their schools.  So the book publishers just did what Texas school boards wanted.

You will have to read the decision yourself -- word for word. And read Southern newspapers, Kansas newspapers, original sources.

Because you sure as hell are  not going to get this from text books or "historians" who try to pander to Southern pride.   Eric Foner, for example, says Dred Scott was "a rather narrow ruling" about citizenship!!   If you read this far, you know Dred Scott was anything but a narrow ruling about citizenship.

But that is exactly what Foner and other "historians" say, so they won't piss off Southern apologists.  


Nor was this just about Kansas -- by this logic, (and the South bragged about it, remember that) no one could exclude slavery. NO ONE.  Not Congress, not Kansas, not the people.

And not just in Kansas. Nebraska too, and all the way west to the Pacific Ocean,  bragged the Southern leaders Did you see it above?  We show it again.....

See this 


If we lose the "territories" Atchison said, we lose slavery.   But if we win in the territories (by force)  we can spread slavery to the Pacific. 

Kansas people rejected slavery -- remember?   Didn't matter to slave owners.  Southern leaders, who didnt even live in Kansas, demanded the spread of slavery there anyway.

Southern hatred of Kansas was extreme -- but even in the Civill War, Confederates made sure they paid back Kansas for voting against slavery. You are not taught that either -- they killed abolitionist before the war, and made special trips to kill them DURING the war.

Gee -- the things they leave out of Southern approved US text books.



You probably never ever heard that Southern leaders made expansion of slavery an issue of life and death, did you?  Here is the governor of Georgia, in his speech,  telling how slaves would have to be killed, if we had to ever free them.  



As slavers sent more men and money to  "kill abolitionist" in Kansas, the rhetoric got extreme.   Bet you didn't know that, either.  Here is from the Governor of Georgia, and it's not unusual at all for the time.

Do you see why Lincoln was correct -- and Southern leaders agreed he was correct -- when he wrote this letter to Alexander Stephens. Lincoln was very polite about this extreme issue, but he says it as well as anyone ever did.

Lincoln was willing to bend over backward -- offer any guarantee that slavery would not be bothered by the outside, but he would not allow the spread of slavery.  

Lincoln knew slavery was doomed -- if he could stop it from spreading.  When you understand that, when you realize Lincoln was going to kill slavery by stopping it's growth (and said so) his actions and speeches made more sense.


They were loud proud and clear, at the time.  Our goal, our purpose is to SPREAD SLAVERY and Kansas can not reject it.   Sound like state's rights to you?

 Atchison  resigned the Senate "to go kill abolitionist" in Kansas, when the first effort of crashing their election with 2000 men didn't work.

Why aren't we taught that?   Why aren't we taught about the war ultimatums to spread slavery? 

Good question.  





By what logic, then, did Jefferson Davis demand the spread of slavery there?  By what logic did Southern leaders at Montgomery, as the first act of the Confederacy, demand the spread of slavery into Kansas.

 By state's rights? No, Kansas was overwhelmingly anti slavery. 
 And everyone knew it.  

See this video clip -- a 1939 movie, which happens to have, nearly verbatim, dialog from the LIncoln Douglas debates, on Dred Scott.


That's right, Southern leaders demanded the SPREAD of slavery as a war ultimatum.  Not the protection of it.  Lincoln was willing to guarantee protection of slavery where it existed -- but that was not the problem.  The problem was, the South wanted to once again spread slavery. See this again. It's important. 

This time, however, Kansas changed everything. People in Kansas rejected slavery repeatedly, once by a vote of 98%-2%. 

Their children and grandchildren, when they wrote the "history" of the Civil War, essentially white washed the extreme and what seems crazy now -- demanding the spread of slavery by force into Kansas, that had rejected slavery over and over.

But no speaker demanding the spread of slavery ever mentions that Kansas voters, overwhelmingly, rejected slavery.

But then, neither does your text book!   Your text book glosses over this too, and never mentions the war ultimatums,  nor mentions the claims white race would be exterminated.  

Denying our enjoyment? Seriously?

Slave owners COULD take their slaves there -- no one was stopping them.  Kansas even allowed voting about slavery -- and repeatedly voted against slavery.   Honest men said Kansas was clearly against slavery 10-1. One vote came back 98% -2%

But notice that speaker didn't say that -- nor did Davis, nor did any SOutherner --they would simply demand the spread of slavery into Kansas.  Davis claimed Southerners "gave their blood" for Kansas, but never had the balls to tell people Kansas voters repeatedly rejected slavery.

We are NOT told this, but this is what Southern public was hearing, this is what their newspapers said, this is what their books said, this is what their leaders said.  

This is what Lincoln had to deal with -- he did not deal with the whitewashed, Southern gentleman care about liberty and states rights BS.

Just electing Lincoln, therefore, was a "declaration of war" said Southern editors. And no one mentions that?

The SOuthern  states did not allow Lincoln on the ballot in 9 of the 11 states, and where they did allow him on the ballot, they simply didn't count his votes.   Bet you didn't know that.

Even Robert E Lee said God ordained not only slavery, but the "painful discipline" slaves must -- his word, must -- endure.  Pain is "necessary for their instruction."    

No one told you that either.  Lee's slave ledgers show he had slave girls whipped, and bought women and children from bounty hunters.  No one told you that either.  Learn about Lee's slave ledgers 


Admit it -- you never heard of any of this.   Ever. Southern Ultimatums -- war ultimatums -- demanding the spread of slavery? Their leaders boasting that because blacks are not persons, the South can force slavery into Kansas, where it was rejected over and over?

Their own "anti slavery" leader, Lee, was actually a cruel slavery.  Why do we just repeat myths, why not go by facts?

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

Even though Kansas rejected slavery again, and again, and again, Southern leaders, by "logic" of Dred Scott decision, claimed Kansas could not keep slavery out.   

Sound like state's rights to you?  If you think forcing slavery into Kansas after they voted again and again and again against slavery, is state's rights, you are an idiot, and get off this page.

So why do people claim Southern leaders cared about state's rights?  Because they don't know what I am telling you here, and what was common knowledge then. In fact, Southern leaders bragged about it, then, until they lost.

Later, their children and grandchildren would insist dear old dad just cared about state's rights.   Southern school boards edited, and essentially wrote, the text books about history.   They "forgot" to mention a few facts, like Southern leaders war ultimatums to spread slavery for God and white survival. 



Jeff Davis had a valid point --IF blacks were not fully human.

That's what he said - blacks were not persons.  They were property.

On that logic -- was the justification for everything that came after 1856.

The killing sprees started already -- but Davis never pointed that out.

 BECAUSE blacks were property -- not human beings, not persons under the law, according to Dred Scott decision, said Davis,  no government could prevent an owner from taking their property where they wanted.  Furthermore, Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery and pass legislation to that effect.  

  This is as basic as it gets, but Southern edited text books have largely defined the narrative, and never tell students that Southern leaders actually hated states rights, when those states rejected slavery, and never tell you about the war ultimatums to spread slavery.

Lincoln railed against this time and time again, in every Lincoln Douglas debate, this is Lincoln's big point. Lincoln yelled out "The purpose of the Dred Scott decision is to make slaves property, and nothing but property."   Of course it was, that is what the order said!

In Lincoln's famous House Divided Speech, he is exposing the deception and trickery of the Dred Scott decision, and how the South could not get legislation passed, so they arranged a court order that announced -- as if they were kings -- that blacks are not property, NOT PERSONS.  What the slave owners could  not get by legislation, they would get by trickery on the US Supreme Court.

See this video clip -- Lincoln being played by Raymond Massey, and the screen writer used nearly exact quotes from the LIncoln Douglas debates.  

That is why Lincoln had to keep the Union together, to stop the spread of slavery.   And that is why the South wanted to separate--and they said so clearly and at length -- to spread slavery.



This was no secret at all then -- the South's reason to secede (and then attack) was discussed openly, in newspapers, books, speeches. Southern leaders BRAGGED about it!  

It's only odd now because you haven't heard it.  This was the issue for decades -- the spread of slavery vs stopping the spread.  And each election the Southern leaders pushed more and more slavery -- again and again using force and deception.


Southern official defense of slavery grew so extreme that it was not only allowed by God -- but ORDAINED, and demanded by God!   Even the torture (painful disciplien) was ordained by God.

Alexander Stephens,   Confederate Vice President bragged that the entire white world would respect the Confederates because they are doing slavery as God wanted it -- for punishment of the inferior race.

This is just a snippet -- its a very long speech....

Yes PUNISHMENT! Blacks, according to Confederate leaders, were being punished by God. 

There are many bizarre and almost unbelievable things in Southern documents, not gotcha things out of context, but totally in context, the full clear meaning, is amazing.


Lincoln said the spread of slavery was the ONLY issue of significance between us, in his famous note to Alexander Stephens, who visited Lincoln after secession, but Lincoln refused to meet him as an official from a different nation,but sent him this  cordial note, that Stephens prized the rest of his life, and put in his own autobiography.  

Stephens  seem to agree with Lincoln -this was the only substantial difference, but to Slave owners, it was a deadly difference, if you go by what they told cheering crowds. 

Stephens painted the Confederacy as a nation based on the will of God and the validation of science-  blacks are so inferior, it is natural and Godly law they be enslaved!   Someday the world will honor the Confederacy for this "great moral truth"!

See Stephens amazing "Cornerstone speech" where he claims the South was "based" on the spread of slavery for GOD, and that the entire world would someday respect the South for obeying God in enslaving the "inferior" black race, as punishment they deserved according to the bible.

Yeah, it got that crazy. 

But this is what Lincoln dealt with.   This is what slaves dealt with.  They did NOT deal with the whitewashed BS edited by Southern school boards.

Lincoln again and again and again assured the South, even before the election, that he would not do anything to upset slavery there.  His goal was to stop the SPREAD of slavery.  These are the quotes often used by Lincoln haters to make stupid people think Lincoln was not against slavery. Of course he was against slavery and everyone knew it and Lincoln's enemies hated him for it.

But first, Lincoln had to stop the SPREAD of slavery.

The ONLY issue Davis and the South said was "intolerable" was the resistance to the spread of slavery - into Kansas.   


Kansas surprised slave owners and slave apologist.  Slave power men just assumed the same threats, violence, and religious fervor that worked to spread slavery into other states, would work in Kansas.   Bet you didn't know that.

You also didn't know that in every slave state, it was illegal to speak, write, or even preach against slavery.  Once slave power got into a state, because of these "anti-incendiary laws" slavery was fixed, no one could openly challenge it, even from the pulpit. This is another overlooked fact, probably the most important single fact about slavery in the US is that the South made it illegal to speak, write, or preach against it.

In fact, Kansas whites were arrested and whipped, as were whites in the South, who dared to speak or write openly against slavery.  Bet your history teacher has no flipping idea, this is NOT taught in text books, either.

But Kansas men -- after being passive for a long time -- fought back, and Southern leaders could not pretend "states rights" anymore.

That is not mentioned candidly in US text books, but it is mentioned that "slavery was an issue" in Kansas.   Text books leave it vague what the problem was -- the problem was Kansas whites kept rejecting slavery, and Southern leaders promised war if slavery was not spread there.

That was the problem, simply put.

Problem is, Kansas had voted three times, once by 98%-2% against slavery. 

You probably never heard that -- you never heard Kansas voted against slavery again and again, and you never heard Southern War Ultimatums to spread slavery there anyway.

You are about to learn what our Southern edited text books "forget" to mention" -- the bragging of Southern leaders war ultimatums to spread slavery.

Yet people act as if LIncoln was trying to force an end to slavery in the South. He never said so -- he was doing all he could to keep the South in the Union, precisely because if they created their own country, as they promised, they would spread slavery to the rest of the continental US, and to other countries.

They BRAGGED about it -- Southern leaders boasted of their plans to spread slavery as God intended, and claimed they did slavery per God's instructions.  See the Cornerstone speech below, given eight ti


White survival -- I kid you not -- was at stake, according to Southern leaders. According to official Southern documents, books, and speeches, slavery MUST spread into Kansas, or the white race will be killed.



Turns out, no one uses Orwellian double speak quite like slavers -- such as Jefferson Davis claim that liberty is the right to own slaves, or Robert E Lee's assertion God ordained slavery, and it's not up to us to question Him.


Slavery is ordained by God was a common theme in Southern speeches -- and best selling books. 

More importantly it was illegal in the South to preach otherwise. Oh your text books never told you that, did they?

Surprise surprise.  Preachers could be, and were, arrested for even owning books that questioned slavery.   Bet you didn't know that either.  That's right, just owning the wrong book could get you whipped and jailed.

We should know all this from our history books,  it's basic, but  US text books edited by Southern school boards "forgot" to mention a few things.  


Toombs was Secretary of State of the Confederacy
regularly predicted death of whites
if slavery was not spread

Why not tell US students that Kansas rejected slavery, once by  by a vote of 98%-2%.  

Its also in the Confederate own Constitution....


Hiton Helper said that if free speech had been allowed in the South, and if real elections had been held, slave owners would have been kicked out.   Bet you didn't know that.

Oh you didn't know it was ILLEGAL to speak write or preach against slavery in Southern states after 1840's?   It was  a huge deal then -- preachers could be arrested, and to run for office by saying slavery was wrong?  Your ass would be in jail. 

Bet you didn't know that. 

Slave owners on the United States Supreme Court literally ordered blacks --by court order -- to be considered "inferior beings" not persons.  Go on, read that sentence a few times, and ask your history teacher why he never told you shit about it. 

The answer is -- your history teacher would have to actually read the Taney decision, and the Southern documents bragging about it, and Lincoln's speeches blasting it.   But your history teacher got his "education" from US text books, which gloss over these kinds of things.

Jefferson Davis bragged of this -- as did all Southern leaders



Watch this video -- true, its from a movie (1939) but its nearly a verbatim account of Lincoln and Douglas debating the Dred Scott decision. 

Stephen A Douglas, who ran against Lincoln for US Senate, then again for US President,  also boasted of Dred Scott decision that blacks are inferior. Did you know that?

No, you didn't know.  And  Lincoln -- in every Lincoln Douglas debate, brought up the vile nature of the Dred Scott decision because it said blacks were NOT HUMAN BEINGS -- not persons, but "inferior beings".

So political leaders were arguing this over and over -- in those terms.  Jefferson Davis and the South were bragging that blacks were inferior beings as ordered by the court!


Lincoln in speech after speech, in the Lincoln Douglas debates, in the House Divided Speech, as explaining it just like we are here -- that Dred Scott decision said blacks are inferior beings and not persons, but property.

Lincoln said it so much, Stephen A Douglas made fun of him for it. Douglas was in favor of the Dred Scott making property of blacks, by the way, he thought that would settle everything.

Defferson Davis was explaining Dred Scott decision -- bragging that it found blacks were "so inferior" they were not persons.


Ever hear of Lincoln's House Divided Speech?   It's probably one of the most famous speeches in US history -- but did you know it's about slave owners attempt to spread slavery by violence and fraud?   He was talking about KANSAS.

Lincoln:   Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.

Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, andhow well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.

But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition.

This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this:

That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, not to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

You never even knew Kansas rejected slavery, did you?Nor did you know Southern leaders promised war if slavery was not spread into Kansas.

So you would not know that Lincoln spoke of this, over and over.   Jefferson Davis spoke of this over and over too -- only Davis demanded the spread of slavery. Davis was bragging about it.

Lincoln was warning that the spread of slavery into Kansas would mean no place had a right to keep slavery out.


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!   

They "forget" to mention the Dred Scott decision said blacks are not persons but are property.

They "forget" to mention Southern slave owners went to Kansas bragging they would kill every abolitionist.

Instead -- they claim the "abolitionist" were extremist and traitors -- exactly what Atchison said when he went to there with 1700 men to kill them.

Notice how the cowards changed their title since then? And notice how the cowards never do mention what they bragged of at the time.