Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Safety and Security in the Southern States during a Democratic Administration

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Democratic Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.

Perhaps you’ll recognize the opening words of Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, delivered March 4, 1861. There is one very minor, only slight change, however, and it is the substitution of the word “Democratic” for the word “Republican.”

That is purposeful, and deliberate, to illustrate a case in point.

Photograph shows participants and crowd at the first inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln, at the U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. Lincoln is standing under the wood canopy, at the front, midway between the left and center posts. His face is in shadow but the white shirt front is visible. (Source: Ostendorf, p. 87) “A distant photograph from a special platform by an unknown photographer, in front of the Capitol, Washington, D.C., afternoon of March 4, 1861. ‘A small camera was directly in front of Mr. Lincoln,’ reported a newspaper, ‘another at a distance of a hundred yards, and a third of huge dimensions on the right … The three photographers present had plenty of time to take pictures, yet only the distant views have survived.” (Source: Ostendorf, p. 86-87)

Slave Southern states nowadays are largely Republican political strongholds.

That is not accidental. It is deliberate, and has been an ongoing effort in the Republican party since at least 1964, or, perhaps even earlier.

States below the Mason-Dixon line – a surveyor’s line of demarcation delineating primarily the southern border of Pennsylvania, and the western border of Delaware, from Maryland – sometimes also known as, or referred to as “slave states,” i.e., states where slavery as an institution was considered not only legal, but morally upright, ethical, and good – were once largely Democratic strongholds until around the mid-1960’s, or thereabouts.

The tables, however, were largely turned, and the tide began to shift in earnest beginning with the candidacy of Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater, who was the failed Republican candidate for President in 1964, opposite President Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas, who as Vice President, succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

At the GOP National Convention that year, New York’s Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller ominously warned of the invasion of the GOP by radicalized elements from the South, which included members of the Ku Klux Klan, John Birch Society, Communists, and other domestic terrorists. In his address to the party’s delegates at the July 1964 Republican National Convention at Cow Palace in Daly City, California, he was given 5 minutes to address the delegates, and was booed for over 16 minutes. He was requesting adoption of a resolution to the 1964 official party platform condemning those groups and individuals whom belonged to them, who had infiltrated the Republican party, and sought to include the following language: “The Republican Party fully respects the contribution of responsible criticism, and defends the right of dissent in the democratic process. But we repudiate the efforts of irresponsible, extremist groups, such as the Communists, the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society and others, to discredit our Party by their efforts to infiltrate positions of responsibility in the Party, or to attach themselves to its candidates.”

The Mason-Dixon surveyor’s line of demarcation is illustrated in BLUE.


But first, a brief history refresher:
The Mason-Dixon line consists of two straight lines of demarcation made by surveyors Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon between 1763 and 1767 in an effort to resolve a border dispute involving Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

The lateral line is the longer of the two, and forms the practical entirety of the southern border of Pennsylvania, and extends from the western-most portion adjoining West Virginia (which was part of Virginia until 1863). That border also forms the northern border of Maryland, and proceeds thereby in a continuously straight fashion in an easterly direction extending into the northern tip of Delaware approximately halfway between the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River, where it then turns RIGHT approximately 45º and proceeds in a southerly direction in a straight fashion into the large peninsular area of Maryland and terminates approximately two-thirds into the area relatively near – east and slightly south of – the confluence of Mockingbird Creek to the north, and Barren Creek to the south, where it forms the southwest corner of Delaware.

Approximate shape of the Mason-Dixon line

The shape it takes could be described as being like a backwards version of the capitol letter ‘L’ lying on its longest vertical stem.


Now, think about this a little while:

Ku Klux Klansmen, Communists, John Birchers, and other subversive anti-American elements had infiltrated the Republican Party as far back as 1964.

And most recently, after using a seemingly endless repetitive tirade of demonstrably bald-faced lies, and other anti-American sentiment explicitly stated by the President throughout the entirety of his term in office – GOP party officials and high-ranking members began to privately express concern among themselves – at least as far back as September, 7, 2020 – that they could not rule out the possibility that the President might be planning to stage an attempted coup in order to stay in power, if he lost the election.

He was.

“He’s laying down the predicate
— taking shots at vote by mail and saying he already knows there’s fraud —
and therefore it’s likely he won’t accept the results of the election.”

Michael Steele, former RNC Chair, stated the obvious, that Trump is a man with a mastery of the art of manipulation, and said that he is, “the P.T. Barnum of the 21st century, on steroids. He doesn’t give a shit about the people of Portland. He doesn’t give a crap about Chicago. This is not complicated. I don’t know why people keep overthinking this man. His goal is to protect himself. He uses the system against itself.”

But, there were yet others, all experts in their fields, including GOP leadership, who had even earlier in late 2019 expressed concern that he would most likely attempt to do something radical.

He did.

In response, they set about to establish role-playing game scenarios, hypothesizing what he might do, and released a report of their findings August 3, 2020.

Even the world’s most renown personality “profiler” – Professor Dr. Jerrold M. Post, MD, Founding Director of the CIA’s Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior who had an illustrious two-decade career with the agency – warned us about the 45th President. He took an unprecedented move by writing a book – against the long-held tenets of the American Psychological Association to not write about subjects whom they have not personally examined – in order to warn us about the disturbing characteristics the President displayed.

Dr. Post’s wife said of her husband that, “He felt it was that important, and that psychiatrists have a duty to warn.”

In his book “Dangerous Charisma,” co-authored with Stephanie Doucette, Professor Dr. Post described Trump as a destructive charismatic leader with the traits of a classic narcissist — such as grandiosity, lack of empathy, hypersensitivity to criticism and no constraints of conscience. But Dr. Post also probed Trump’s symbiotic relationship with his followers, and theirs with him.

In a December 2019 interview, Dr. Post said in part that, “The dangerous, destructive charismatic leader polarizes and identifies an outside enemy and pulls his followers together by manipulating their common feelings of victimization.” 

Dr. Post also conjectured about the scenario presented by a possible loss of the election, saying that, “I think we can be assured that he will not concede early. Trump may not even recognize the legitimacy of the election.”


Former CIA Profiler Jerrold Post On Donald Trump’s “Dangerous Charisma”
Longtime CIA psychologist breaks down the damaged personality of our “dangerous, destructive charismatic leader”
By Chauncey DeVega
December 2, 2019 12:00PM (UTC)

You were the head psychological profiler for the CIA. How do you make sense of Donald Trump?

Dr. Post: A famous Canadian psychoanalyst observed, “The leader is the creation of his followers.” This is a very powerful relationship. Indeed, many people have been puzzled, given Donald Trump’s extremism, that the support and the dedication of his followers to him has been not hugely diminished. Trump’s rallies, in particular, show an almost frightening intensity of the power of Trump’s charisma and influence over his followers.

For a core of his base Donald Trump provides them with many things, including permission to hate. It is a striking phenomenon. In his behavior Trump is also demonstrating some of the principles which are codified in his book on leadership style. Of note, some of these themes are derived from an important mentor for him, the late Roy Cohn.

There is another important aspect to Trump’s influence over his supporters and that is the model of the “charismatic leader-follower relationship.” This is the “mirror-hungry personality,” which comes from a wounded self. The other dimension of the wounded self is an “ideal-hungry personality.” In practice this means that Trump’s core enthusiastic followers feel incomplete without a great inspirational leader to attach themselves to, someone to venerate. The mirror-hungry personality, which is Donald Trump, needs the ego-gratifying applause and roars of approval from crowds. There is a natural psychological fit between Trump and his followers.

As someone who has profiled political leaders, how would you assess Donald Trump?

Dr. Post: If one were to subtract from the ranks of political leaders all those with significant narcissistic personality features, the ranks would be perilously impoverished. I see Donald Trump as representing the quintessential narcissist. Using that phrase, though, is not to make a diagnosis, but to say he has a preponderance of these traits. Someone such as Donald Trump with that trait has no capacity to empathize with others, no constraints of conscience. Donald Trump also demonstrates a paranoid orientation. Whenever anything goes wrong, there is someone to blame.

There is also unconstrained aggression. This is very important. Never apologize, never admit you’re wrong. That is part of Donald Trump’s political style. But negotiating foreign policy is different from negotiating how to buy a skyscraper. Donald Trump also shows through his behavior a deep underlying insecurity. His grandiosity aside, Donald Trump is extremely fragile, and that trait is associated with extreme sensitivity.

In terms of a narcissistic injury, Donald Trump projects strength because he is in fact so weak inside. Trump’s supporters also feel weak and therefore they want to project strength as well — and that is why they are so devoted to Trump.

Dr. Post: That is part of the ideal-hungry personality of his followers. But we should also note that there are two types of charisma in terms of leaders. One is the destructive charismatic leader who gains followers by polarization and by identifying an enemy. The other type is a more idealizing charisma, which both Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi represented. They are pulling together big crowds of followers but are doing so for positive goals. Charisma is a very powerful force when it’s for the good.

By comparison, the dangerous, destructive charismatic leader polarizes and identifies an outside enemy and pulls his followers together by manipulating their common feelings of victimization.

If Donald Trump is impeached but not convicted, or loses the election in 2020, how will he respond?

Dr. Post: In the last chapter of my new book I quote one of my favorite poems, which is, “Do not go gentle into that good night, but rage, rage at the dying of the light.” I do not believe that Donald Trump will go gentle into that good night. In a close election, there is a very real hazard in terms of both potential outcomes. Should Trump win, as he did in 2016, he will make it a much bigger win and talking about the fraudulent election support on the Democratic side. But should Trump lose narrowly, I think we can be assured that he will not concede early. Trump may not even recognize the legitimacy of the election.

As for impeachment, should the Senate not vote to convict, Trump will take that as the indication that it was all somehow a “witch hunt” by the Democrats against him. Whatever happens, Trump will not go gentle into that good night.


True to form, the soon-to-be former President rallied his hoodlums to insurrection and invasion of the United States Capitol building to purposely disrupt, on January 6, 2021, the very day of the Constitutionally-mandated Joint Session of Congress convened expressly for the purpose of thwarting the process of the certification of Electoral College votes and confirm Joe Biden as President-elect.

Colloquially speaking, “the chickens have come home to roost.”

The party could have rejected such subversive elements long ago.

They did not.

America’s corrupted and resigned President Richard Nixon, sought to include the “Dixiecrats” – racist Democrats and demagogues like former Alabama Governor George C. Wallace – through his “Southern Strategy.

He was largely successful.

The party could have rejected the radicalized elements of the so-called “TEA Party” and Libertarian extremists some time ago.

They did not.

The party could have rejected the candidacy of the man who has practically single-handedly destroyed it in the past 4 years.

They did not.

The “big tent” party has become a party of nothing.

Nothing but garbage.

Libertarians, White Supremacists, Communists, and other such ilk deny that Nixon had a “Southern Strategy.” Stalin denied any role in killing Trotsky. Timothy McVeigh denied bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. So what? Liars lie.

Many Southerners, as evidenced by their political persuasion, have never really gotten past the Civil War.

They deny that the Civil War was about slavery, and instead claim it was about “states’ rights.”

They’re only half-correct. It was about slavery -AND- about states’ rights to practice slavery.

They deny that the modern display of the Confederate flag – of any kind – is about hatred and racism, and instead, claim that it’s “heritage, not hate.”

They’re correct: It’s a heritage of hate.

The rotten seeds of lies have been sown by traitorous liars since shortly after the Civil War ended, when the secessionist pro-slavery group United Daughters of the Confederacy sought to perpetrate the Great Lie that the war was somehow, a noble, albeit “Lost Cause,” and slavery, as its most ingloriously ignoble institution, was somehow noble, good, just, holy, or pure – when instead, it was anything but. They set about erecting statues of miscreant Confederate military leaders throughout our union – especially and particularly in the Southern Slave states. They set about naming public buildings, buildings at schools and universities, for those same viciously wicked men.

Timeline showing incidences of placement of Confederate iconography in the public square, such as statuary and monuments on courthouse grounds, government office grounds, the naming of roads, schools, and other public places for Confederates – most all which was done by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

It was a slavery sympathizer, traitorous Southerner, and secessionist – John Wilkes Booth – who shot and killed President Abraham Lincoln.

It was Southern forces which first fired upon Fort Sumter, South Carolina, thereby starting the Civil War.

It was Southern traitorous secessionists who split asunder our United States to form a separate “Confederacy.”

To this very day, many Southerners still bear a grudge against the United States of America, especially the Federal government.

Perhaps Grant and Sherman should have had a “take no prisoners” approach, and annihilated them every one – every single man, woman, and child. Such tactics are “Biblical,” insofar as the “god” of the Bible often gave instructions to the Hebrew nation to kill everyone, and every living thing… every man, woman, and child – including their livestock. NOTHING was to be left alive. Southerners are big on the Bible. And oddly enough, annihilation was what Southerners engaged in, contrary to the accepted rules of war.

The Southern Confederates were barbaric.

They were the domestic terrorists of their day.

I have written about some of them in an entry entitled “Terrorism in the South.”


Here’s another one: Silas Gordon – a Southern secessionist guerilla in Missouri who twice burned down every town and farm in Platte County, Missouri. And then, the sons of bitches in Texas had the unmitigated gall to name a town after him. Why didn’t they name a town after Poncho Villa, or Adolph Hitler, eh? Bastards!


Here’s another: Champ Ferguson, another particularly notorious Southern secessionist guerilla from Clinton County, Kentucky, who had a well-known penchant for violence even before the Civil War, having stabbed several men who were hunting him down for crimes he’d committed. He and his wife fled to White County, Tennessee, from where he based his barbaric operations, wantonly killing civilians. Stories are extant of his barbarism. When he was captured by Union forces in 1865, he claimed to have killed over 100 Union soldiers and pro-Union civilians. He was tried for war crimes by the US government after the war, and executed by hanging in Nashville, Tennessee October 20, 1865, aged 43, for the murder of 53 civilians.


Here’s another Southern “hero”: Confederate Lieutenant Colonel James Keith, of North Carolina, who had been dispatched to the town of Marshall, in Madison County, North Carolina, on the border with Tennessee. Becoming enraged at the news of the ransacking of the home of Confederate Colonel Lawrence Allen by a civilian posse of pro-Unionists, whereupon he, and his men of the 64th North Carolina Regiment, searched the entire Shelton Laurel Valley region of Madison County, North Carolina, found and fought them, shot down 12, and captured about 7. He then set about tracking down the men’s family homes and tortured their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters by breaking their fingers, whipping, temporary hanging, until they told locations of about 8 more Union sympathizers. The tactics proved unsuccessful. They also “robbed 85-year-old Unus Riddle and whipped 70-year-old Sally Moore with hickory rods until her back bled.” LTC Keith arrested those men and marched the 15 of them for trial in Knoxville, Tennessee, but two escaped into a steep ravine. Along the route

“After marching for a few miles, Keith stopped the column, ordered five of the prisoners to kneel, and had them shot by soldiers standing 10 paces away. An eyewitness account in The New York Times six months later recorded 60-year-old Joe Woods’s last request: “If you are going to murder us at least give us time to pray.” Five more were then ordered to kneel. Thirteen-year-old David Shelton, who was at first only wounded, begged the soldiers, exclaiming, “You have killed my old father and my three brothers; you have shot me in both arms, but “I can get well. Let me go home to my mother and sisters.” No mercy was shown Shelton, or the three remaining prisoners (two had escaped the previous night).”

North Carolina Confederate Governor Zebulon Vance had ordered LTC Keith to hold the prisoners for trial. But he obviously didn’t do that, whereupon Governor Vance ordered an investigation by a longtime friend and prosecutor, A. S. Merrimon, who learned that LTC Keith had summarily executed 13 civilians. In the interim, Governor Vance learned that LTC Keith had been acquitted by a military courts-martial for those crimes, and then allowed to resign. He then wrote a letter to Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon, dated February 28, 1863 seeking to learn Keith’s whereabouts to stand for a civilian trial for murder.

“Vance’s request illustrates a legal anomaly. According to the 1806 Articles of War, which both Union and Confederate forces followed (the Union would adopt new standards later in 1863), guerrilla fighters like those in Shelton Laurel Valley, unlike soldiers in uniform, could be shot even if they threw down their weapons and surrendered. They had no right to be treated as prisoners of war. But, once they were captured, they could not be executed without legal proceedings before either a military or civilian court. The execution of such prisoners without a trial was murder. Furthermore, the military was obligated to assist civilian authorities in bringing charges against anyone accused of breaking this regulation.”

Vance, who had vowed to follow Keith “to the gates of hell, or hang him,” was frustrated in his inability to find LTC Keith. Eventually, Union forces captured him toward the end of the war, imprisoned him to stand trial individually for each of the murders. Having been acquitted on the first count, Keith appealed the remaining counts based upon an 1866 North Carolina amnesty law which voided further prosecution. A mere two days before the North Carolina State Supreme Court ruled in his favor, he escaped on February 21, 1869, and was never seen again. The state later dropped their charges in 1871. Keith remained the only individual charged in those mass murders.


William T. “Bloody Bill” Anderson, a notoriously wicked and barbarically cruel guerilla Confederate was the perpetrator of the infamous Centralia Missouri Massacre, on September 27, 1864, when about 80 of his nearly 400 men, including Jesse James, as an advance scouting party, around 9AM rode into Centralia with the objective of destroying the North Missouri Railroad. “Bloody Bill” decided instead to hijack and rob a train, whereupon he and his men – some of whom were wearing stolen Union uniforms – found 23 of the 125 passengers were Union soldiers. He ordered all the passengers off, and the soldiers to strip their clothing. As they were undressing, “Bloody Bill” asked the soldiers who were officers to step forward. Only one man did – Sergeant Thomas Goodman. “Bloody Bill” and his henchmen killed all 22 of them, then scalped, skinned, and dismembered their corpses. “Bloody Bill” was known to have collected scalps, and displayed them openly on his horse’s saddlery. They then set fire to the train, and sent it along the tracks toward Sturgeon, Missouri.

Sergeant Goodman was three days a captive of “Bloody Bill” Anderson’s, and as the marauders prepared to cross the Missouri River near Rocheport, Sergeant Goodman escaped at night. The day of the attack, shortly around 3PM, led by Union Major Andrew Vern Emen Johnston, a former schoolteacher with little military experience, led 146 men of the newly formed 39th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Mounted) and rode into Centralia, and upon their arrival were warned by townspeople that “Bloody Bill” and his men were likely nearby, and well-armed with numerous revolver pistols, some whom had 4 each. Major Johnston’s men had only single-shot muzzle-loading muskets. An engagement quickly pursued as “Bloody Bill’s” men charged the Union Regiment, which beat a hasty retreat. As told by Frank James, older brother of Jesse James, Jesse fired the shot that killed Major Johnston. Altogether, 123 Union soldiers were killed that day, while but one was wounded. “Bloody Bill” lost three men, with ten wounded.


The Fort Pillow Massacre is another instance of savage brutality by Southern Confederate forces. Located about 50 miles north of Memphis, in Lauderdale County, Tennessee, along a bend in the river, on the banks of the Mississippi River which forms Tennessee’s western border, Confederate forces constructed Fort Pillow in 1861, then abandoned it on June 4 the next year when Union forces controlled most of the surrounding area, whereupon Union troops occupied it. The location provided strategic opportunity for whichever force held it.

On April 12, 1864, led by Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who later became the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, 2,500 Confederate cavalrymen under his command laid siege to, and overtook Fort Pillow, which had a garrison of about 600 men, including Southern Unionists, Union troops, and Negro Union soldiers – members of the 6th U.S. Regiment Colored Heavy Artillery and a section of the 2nd U.S. Colored Light Artillery (previously known as the Memphis Battery Light Artillery (African Descent), under the overall command of Major Lionel F. Booth.

The White Union troops were new recruits from the 13th Tennessee Cavalry, which was a Federal regiment from western Tennessee commanded by Major William F. Bradford, who also commanded a regiment known as Bradford’s Tennessee Cavalry Battalion and organized as the 13th West Tennessee Cavalry (US), though it was officially known as the 14th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (US).

Forrest’s Confederate forces arrived around 10AM, and immediately began engaging battle. After a Confederate sniper killed the fort’s commander, Union Major Lionel Booth, Major William Bradford assumed command. Around 3:30PM, following Major Bradford’s temporary cease fire request, General Forrest feared Major Bradford would attempt to strengthen and refortify his troops via a nearby Union gunboat, the New Era, and demanded the fort’s surrender. Bradford refused, and Forrest stormed the fort 20 minutes later.

The following events are undisputed. Confederate and Union witnesses stated that following Union troops’ surrender, around 4PM until dusk, Forrest’s Confederates swarmed in and began to methodically execute, bayonet, knife, torture, castrate, bludgeon, and lynch them as they attempted surrender in what was accurately described an orgy of sadism.

The exact number of Union soldiers killed in battle, some who attempted escape – most of whom were African-American – is unknown, but is widely estimated that between 229 of the 262 Black Union soldiers were methodically and deliberately murdered by Confederates who ran about shouting “no quarter!” and indiscriminately shooting and savaging survivors.

Only 14 Confederates were killed.

In his official report Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn of the 6th U. S. Heavy Artillery (Colored) stated that “There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter.”

In a letter home written shortly after the battle, a Confederate sergeant wrote in part that “the poor, deluded Negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hand scream for mercy, but were ordered to their feet and then shot down.”

Another Confederate soldier’s letter home stated in part that “Forrest ordered them [Negroes] shot down like dogs, and the carnage continued.”

Following their orgy of violence, bloodbath of carnage, and mass murder at Fort Pillow, the Confederate forces and their leader, General Nathan Bedford Forrest departed the scene.

Regimental records showed that “less than 36 percent of the men from white units died in battle or of wounds, while the death toll for black units was 66 percent.”

On April 24, the New York Times reported on the events which transpired that day, writing in part that, “The blacks and their officers were shot down, bayoneted and put to the sword in cold blood… . Out of four hundred negro soldiers only about twenty survive! At least three hundred of them were destroyed after the surrender! This is the statement of the rebel General Chalmers himself to our informant.”

Confederate Southerners – most notably including Nathan Bedford Forrest – wasted no time denying that any massacre occurred, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Upon learning of the savagery committed by Forrest and his men, a Congressional Committee was quickly tasked with determining the facts of the day’s events. Led by two Republicans, Senator Benjamin F. Wade, a leading Radical Republican, and Representative Daniel W. Gooch determined that a massacre had indeed happened at Fort Pillow, which was committed by Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and men under his command.

Again, Southerners wasted no time in denying the events, and castigating the two Congressmen, accusing them of bias in their findings.

On May 3, 1864, President Lincoln sought guidance from his cabinet on how to respond. Responses to his request varied, and ranged from retaliation, waiting for additional information from the Congressional committee, to holding Forrest’s command responsible, to execution of the offenders, and direct confrontation by Union Generals of Confederate Generals concerning the allegations.

Lincoln began preparing to write instructions to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton upon how to respond, but ultimately, took no action, claiming that he was “distracted” by other issues.

Later, in his book “Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant,” Union General Ulysses S. Grant, who was not present at the battle, wrote of it that,

“Forrest, however, fell back rapidly, and attacked the troops at Fort Pillow, a station for the protection of the navigation of the Mississippi River. The garrison consisted of a regiment of colored troops, infantry, and a detachment of Tennessee cavalry. These troops fought bravely, but were overpowered. I will leave Forrest in his dispatches to tell what he did with them.

“”The river was dyed,” he [Forrest] says, “with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards. The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners.” Subsequently, Forrest made a report in which he left out the part which shocks humanity to read.”

Subsequently, numerous reexaminations of the records of the event have been undertaken by all modern historians, who have unanimously concluded that, contrary to any assertions otherwise, the horrific events that day were a massacre, by any definition.


Lawrence, Kansas Massacre – In retaliation for the Sacking of Osceola, Missouri, Confederate guerilla Captain William Clarke Quantrill, a fervent pro-slavery opportunist who led a criminal band of occasional irregular Confederates known as “Quantrill’s Raiders” – among whom were criminal brothers Frank and Jesse James – raided Lawrence, Kansas August 21, 1863.

Having earlier enlisted in the Confederate Army under General Sterling Price, Quantrill quickly deserted and formed his own Confederate criminal cohort, though he quickly lost control of the group which splintered into several independent murderously violent factions. His primary purpose was not ideological, but criminal, and he is well known to have engaged in numerous criminal activities under guise of Confederacy partisanship, and though the Confederacy knew of his actions, they every one refused to take action against him, or his men.

August 21, 1863 was a Friday, and Frank James “cut his criminal teeth” quite early with Quantrill as he attended Quantrill’s savagely murderous attack on the largely defenseless town of Lawrence, Kansas, which was widely known as an abolitionist town. Being enraged that the town’s residents had allowed the area to be used as a type of operations base by abolitionists and Union regiments, Quantrill, Frank and Jesse James, and about 450 of his guerillas rode into town, and around 5AM began to shoot and kill every male – young and old alike – whomever they saw, wherever they saw them – including some who were in bed, and raped the women. After a bloodbath which claimed at least 150 lives, they then set fire to every building in town.

Quantrill had said that his motivation for the attack was “to plunder, and destroy the town in retaliation for Osceola.”

An eye-witness survivor to the events of that day, Charles L. Robinson, who later became the first Governor of Kansas, characterized Quantrill’s attack as an act of vengeance, stating that “Before this raid the entire border counties of Missouri had experienced more terrible outrages than ever the Quantrill raid at Lawrence. … There was no burning of feet and torture by hanging in Lawrence as there was in Missouri, neither were women and children outraged,” and explained that Quantrill specifically targeted Lawrence because Jayhawkers (militant anti-slavery guerilla factions) had attacked Missouri “as soon as war broke out,” and noted that Lawrence was “headquarters for the thieves and their plunder.”


There’s your Southern secessionist Confederates for you.

Criminals, Murderers, and Domestic Terrorists, by any other name.

Terrorism in the South

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: