Total Pageviews

Monday, September 10, 2012


 Where should we get information about Robert E Lee?

How about -- from his own slave ledgers?

Moving this to soon.     Work in Progress. 

"Hang on Lee lovers -- this could be a bumpy 





Most people do  not know that Lee's slave ledgers ( and bounty hunter letters)  still exist.

Elizabeth Pryor (who adored Lee) wrote a stunning -- but careful -- book after she was allowed unlimited access to his slave ledgers.


Though Pryor was a devotee of Robert E Lee - and a good friend of the Lee family  -- she could not write carefully enough to keep hidden...

✔️Lee's  torture (yes torture) of slave girls.

✔️Lee's defense of slavery and torture (yes, torture).

✔️Lee's purchase of kidnapped women -- free black women -- from the North

✔️Lee's white looking slaves, including white looking females.

✔️Lee's dirty (sexual explicit) letters to various women ongoing after his marriage

✔️Lee's obsession with escaped slaves,  and high prices paid for the capture of escaped females.


State of Lee "Scholarship"

Most school children in Virginia are taught the name of Lee's pet chicken.  A pet chicken he ended up eating.

No children are taught the names of the girls he had tortured (torture is the right word) for trying to escape.

They see a picture of "General Lee's Hen." 

No children are taught Lee screamed at slave girls as he had them whipped.

Or that Lee bought kidnapped women from bounty hunters.

None are taught that Lee's slave ledgers still exist.

But  many can tell you the name of Lee's pet chicken.


What passes for "scholarship"  about Lee is mostly nonsense,  liars or fools repeating the lies or BS from others before.

Lee's slave ledgers, bounty hunter instructions and payments, and dirty letters to various women, should change that -- but it's likely to take 150 years.  

The bulk of Lee "nonsense"  came from books published 10-50 years after Lee's death,  made up of absurdities.  Lee "now sits at the right hand of Christ"  is one such absurdity.

Lee "only wanted to lead young men to Christ"  is another absurdity.

My personal favorite- - Lee and all his men got off their horses and knelt, as bombs blew up around them, during battle. 

It is from books that actually said things like that from which the crux of our "scholarship"  comes.

Shame on the "scholars" that took part in this farce.... and particularly Douglas Southall Freeman,.


Pryor's book about Lee would have been so much easier for her to write---  if he had just burned his slave ledgers.

Because in those ledgers are confirmation of his torture (torture is the right word) of slave girls.

And much more, such as Lee's slave said he was "the worst man we ever saw".

Like rape was common at Lee's slave farm (we won't call it a plantation, which is an Orwellian double speak.

Like Lee actually bought women -- captured free women from the North -- and turned them into slaves.

Like Lee had white looking (therefore --WHITE) slaves.

Like Lee had a bounty hunter whip a slave girl after the regular overseer (the guy who whips slaves = overseer)  refused -because the girl was to small.

Let me repeat that -- the regular overseer (who whipped slaves for a living) refused Lee's order to whip one girl, and Lee paid a bounty hunter to whip her.

These and more facts (typical for slave owners)  are in Lee's slave ledgers-- as Pryor calls them "monthly account books.

How was Pryor going to tell us ALL THAT?

Inside those ledgers are prices he paid, and received, for human flesh. He bought and he sold flesh. He did not run a vegetable farm.  He ran a slave farm -- which we call "plantations".

Human flesh sales?  How was she going to tell us that?


Orwellian double speak is, of course, common in slavery.  Slavery is freedom. War is peace.

 Pryor was not eager, in fact she was unwilling, to use candid terms, as you will see, so she largely -- and necessarily -- adopted Lee's own absurd way of justifying slavery and torture.


Lee did not burn his slave ledgers, or bounty hunter letters.  They family had them in two trunks -- likely did not know  the contents well, as the generations passed.

Nor did the family allow others to study the slave ledgers, until Pryor. 

Pryor herself could have no idea that Lee not only had small girls tortured (yes, he did) but Lee bought women from bounty hunters that captured free women in the North.

(Yes, he did).

Pryor had to be careful how she told you what Lee wrote down.  Her goal was not to trash Lee.

Her goal was to keep -- as much as possible -- Lee's goofy halo upon his head.  And she did that with her words.

But she did show us,  despite herself, in a very, very careful way, more than anyone dared, so far.


What do Lee's slave ledgers and papers show?

  Had slave girls whipped who tried to escape

  Paid bounty hunters for capture of kidnapped blacks in the North

   Justified slavery -- and torture of slaves -- per the bible

  Used slave auctions

 Had slaves built their own whipping post

 Wrote sexually explicit letters to various women

 His slaves said he was the worst man we ever saw

 Owned white looking slave girls


Also apparently there are hundreds of other letters to and from Lee (he kept copies, it seems).  

 Letters about capturing escaped slave girls

Letters about "others"  his bounty hunters caught in the North.

Letters to other women, including sexually explicit letters.

 This is the best we can do -- now.    As you will see, Pryor never told us in candid terms about the tortures --though she did validate as undoubtedly true that Lee had slave girls whipped, and used other "methods" on the girl.   She never called it torture.

And -- she took Lee's side, even on the tortures.  Lee had "ever right"  to "protect his property".

Apparently whipping young girls = protecting property.

Pryor had no problem using that one, herself.  Lee was protecting his property.  He had every right to do so.  

In an interview for American Heritage magazine, Pryor (who knew all about Lee's tortures) was careful how she told them about Lee's tortures. 

She blamed the slaves for "resisting" Lee  and they "challenged Lee".  Pryor was trying to build up pity for Lee, they never "challenged" Lee physically.  The penalty to physically "challenge"  a slave owner was death.  

After the slaves "challenged" Lee, he used "increasingly harsh measures".  And as you will see, those "measures" were not just torture of whips, but your child could be sold for daily hourly agony, and the use of salt (yes salt)  upon wounds, put there (according to witnesses) to increase the pain.

Lee was against slavery?

Jesus people are stupid.



Pryor did not seem to mind Lee's torture of slave girls -- but as you will see, Pryor was pissed when she found out about Lee's white looking (and therefore white) slave girls.


And in the Orwellian bizarro language of the time (still in use today by historians, text books, and teachers) that's what Lee was doing.  He was torturing girls to protect his property.



Newspapers AT THE TIME reported on Lee's torture of slave girls --historians later just dismissed those newspapers and obvious slander!  Lee didn't own slaves, right!  How can he whip or torture people he does not own!

Turns out, Lee wrote it down. By that I mean Lee wrote down payments to bounty hunters  not just for the capture of slave girls, but for the torture (again, torture is the right word) of those slaves.

Lee's slave ledgers, in other words, confirmed those newspapers.  The newspapers alone didn't mean anything --to people who adored Lee 50 years after his death.   They must be false!

But they are not false --if anything, Lee's slave ledgers show far more cruelty (like rape) at Arlington than appeared in the newspapers.


Letters apparently about his white looking slaves (yes, Lee owned white looking slaves -- we have a picture of such a person below.   She belonged to Lee.

And Lee had bounty hunters chase not only the black looking slave girls (yes, girls).  Lee had bounty hunters chase the white looking slave girls.

No way -- right? Lee didn't even OWN slaves!  So how could he own white looking slave girls?

Because he did. And his own handwritten slave ledgers prove he did.

And Lee considered it owning such girls a "spiritual liberty".


In the very letter hundreds of thousands of people use to prove Lee was against slavery -- he not only defends slavery and the torture (painful discipline) of slaves, but he declares slavery a "spiritual liberty"

Remember -- that's from the letter that, over the years, likely a million people are told proves he is against slavery.

That's how absurd our "education"  about Lee is.

This is not one of Lee's white slave girls, but he owned girls as light as she.

In fact, Lee apparently owned the largest number of mulatto and white looking slaves in US,  as far as anyone can tell, because over half of Lee's slaves were mulatto, according to his own hand written records.


For 100 years historians knew there were two trunks full of Lee's personal papers still with Lee's family.  The family did not allow anyone to study those.

Until now.

The Lee family and Virginia Historical society picked Elizabeth Pryor to actually study all of his papers -- including slave ledgers, letters to bounty hunters, even letters to various women after his marriage.

At first glance, if you just read a few isolated papers, those slave ledgers and bounty hunters would not seem important....standard stuff, right?


But Elizabeth Pryor was a scholar.  And she could carefully catalog and read through all those papers -- all those slave ledgers.  She could read all the bounty hunter letters.

She could -- and did -- connect, for example, a date in his slave ledgers to a dated letter to bounty hunters.    She could spot a name in his slave ledger ,  see any price mentioned for that slave, etc.

So she did.  But you need not worry too much if you are a Lee devotee.   Pryor took his side on nearly every issue, nearly every time, as you will see.  

When she seemed upset with Lee -- like his ownership of white looking slave girls (yes, Lee owned white looking slave girls)  Pryor did not exactly say "Lee owned"  white looking slave girls.

But she did say one of Lee's escaped slave girls "could pass for white" and that Lee paid bounty hunters to find any escaped slave -- so he paid to have them search for her.

She was merely one of 12 slave girls to escape at one time.  

Were any other slave girls white?  (White looking = white)

Pryor did not say.

Did Lee's bounty hunters catch this white looking girl?

Pryor did not say.

But she did write that Lee had slave girls whipped (torture is the right word, and we will use it from now on)  and let us know (falsely) that Lee had to have them whipped if they tried to escape.

That was not true. The law was that slaves could not be whipped more than 39 lashes at one time .  One of the clever distortions Pryor used not to blame Lee for his action.

There certainly was no law that he had to have girls tortured that were so small, the regular overseer refused to do it. (Which is what happened in once case). 

 Pryor wrote an amazing book -- and took his side on every issue.

She wrote very very carefully -  but still was able, in her own way, to show drastically more than anyone else ever dared.

Make no mistake, however, she was a Lee devotee when she started the book, and a Lee devotee when she ended it. 

He did not burn them.   Pryor refused to even call the slave ledgers by their candid name -- she used the term "monthly account books". 

They were "monthly account"  books, you can discern from her text,  about SLAVES.  Prices paid for slaves, money from selling or hiring slaves out.   Even money for bounty hunters to capture and whip escaped slaves.   That makes them slave ledgers, and very likely Lee himself wrote "Slave Trades"  or "Slave Ledgers"  and that Pryor saw what he himself put as the title or on cover.

But she never shared such "details"  with the reader.



If Elizabeth Pryor could go back in time to  tell Robert E Lee one thing, it might be this: "Please, please General Lee, burn your slave ledgers."

Did the family and historians assume those papers would just validate what we were already told by "experts"  on Lee?  

Why would they assume otherwise?






There is a persistent myth that slave owners could be kind, generous and  even anti- slavery.   That is not what the facts show, however.

When even men like Lee (supposedly he was angainst slavery, right)  tortured slave girls and sold children,  and even bought kidnapped women,  what on earth did the cruel slave owners do?

And as you will see, Pryor relates, in her careful way, that not only were slave girls tortured as Arlington, Lee himself took part in the torture, screaming at the slave girl in one case, as she was being tortured.

First he taunted her,  had her tied up, and screamed at her as she was whipped, then had salt poured in her wounds for more pain.

Pain, said Lee, was necessary for their instruction.   And he meant extreme pain.  

His father had a slave girl hung for knocking down a white man who was whipping her.  Apparently if you resisted being whipped by knocking down the man whipping you -- you were sentenced to death.



That is how Lee grew up.  Keenly aware slaves should be tortured (tortured is the right word) and they better take that torture as a lesson, and not further resist.  No wonder Lee though slaves were being "instructed" by God via the pain.   That is the logic of slave owners -- he was in no way special in that regard, he was special, however, for the number of slave girls he owned, as you will see.


Then Lee  sent her to "deep south"  which was known to be ghastly and vile for slaves.  That is much the same reports from others, as the punishment for trying to escape was not just whipping, but punishment to your family,  being attacked, even killed, by dogs, and if you resisted a white person by force, you could be burned to death.
Burned.  To. Death.

Give anyone power,  make rewards (financial, sexual, status) and holy hell you will see.  

When you have power to just speak a few words, and a child is sold, or their mother whipped, it's brings out the Robert E Lee joy of torture aspect of humanity.

Have you ever seen a picture of one of Lee's white looking slaves?  Turns out, Lee had slave girls so light skinned they could pass for white -- per his own handwritten records.

Here is such a slave child.  
 Lee owned her.


Yes -- Lee owned slaves.

Yes -- Lee even bought more slaves.

Yes - Lee even used slave auctions.

Yes -- Lee even used bounty hunters.


Also turns out, if you look white -- you are white.  As Elizabeth Pryor found -- and wrote -- "Whites were increasingly enslaving other whites".    She meant  Lee was increasingly enslaving other whites, she was just careful not to say that candidly.

At least one of Lee's white looking slave girls tried to escape. Pryor offhandedly mentions a white looking (could pass for white) slave girl was being chased by bounty hunters.

There were 12 slaves during that time trying to escape, as the white looking girl.

Pryor never puts this altogether for you in one place -- that would be too obvious.  But elsewhere in her book she mentions that Lee had all escaped slaves whipped -- tortured.  She claimed he had to by law. 

Do you know the name of the white looking slave girl?

Do you know the names of the slave girls Lee had whipped for trying to escape?

Do you know how much Lee paid the bounty hunter for the capture, and then for the whipping, of the slave girl(s)?

No ?  Well, Lee wrote it all down in his slave ledgers.



By silly I mean absurd.

And false.....


Children in Virginia were taught -- and maybe are still taught -- the name of Lee's pet chicken. 

In all those decades -- over 130 years of such "education" -- not a single word about the names of the girls Lee had tortured, or bought, or sold.

But they were taught the name of a pet chicken.

Supposedly wise men, pipe smoking Phd's  -- some even got Pultizer prizes - were well paid and well regarded for telling the students (and the country) several layers of absurd nonsense about Lee.

Which you can do about anyone -- no matter how many girls Lee had whipped, no matter what tortures he applied, or what prices he was paid, or what prices he paid for human flesh (and that was the business he was in -- the name "Planter"  is  an example of Orwellian double speak)  the schools, the teachers, the text books, and the "historians"  simply left out what he did that was sadistic, sexual, cruel, and heartless.


Devoted to Christ.  One Lee biographer said Lee "now sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord".

No mention of the girls, their torture, where they were bought, where they were sold, why they tried to escape, why they were tortured, why some were sold as added punishment to an even crueler owner, and away from their mother or their child.

Lee apparently actually sold mothers to distant places to give them even more pain, emotional as well as physical.

No child was ever told about that, no school ever taught that, no smoking piping man with a Pulitzer prize ever mentioned these and other things.

Instead, biographers and "historians" relied on distortions and myths repeated after Lee's death,  as facts.

What else could we learn?  We even knew the name of Lee's pet chicken.  We knew what size his feet were.  We knew most of all he was an honorable man --against slavery, even "violently" against slavery.

Kids in Virginia were actually taught the name of his pet chicken and his horse.  His horse is buried in a place of honor.  His pet chicken's name was Pearl.

We knew he saved sparrows, and knelt during battle as bombs blew up around him --and lieutenants knelt down in silent prayer with him, as those bombs blew up around them.

We knew he "only wanted to lead young men to Christ".

That was all true --right?




Lee literally called the torture of slave girls "instruction".   And he called slavery a "spiritual liberty"

In the very same Lee people have used for 100 years to "prove" Lee was against slavery, Lee actually defends slavery and the torture (painful discipline) of slavery, and claims slavery is a "spiritual liberty".

But the slave ledgers show a cruel, sadistic man, who personally took part in torture of slave girls -- personally ordered the girl whipped, even after the regular overseer refused because the girl was so small.  

He paid a bounty hunter to whip her, as you will see.  And that was documented in his own handwriting, in his own slave ledgers.

Pryor did not want to admit that, but she had to.  The evidence  was overwhelming.


"Lee's poor cross cultural communication skills"

Pryor is on his side -- on every page -- as much as humanly possible.   For example, though she does admit that Lee had slave girls tortured (tortured is the right word) and that Lee had many slaves whipped (because all slaves who tried to escape were tortured, and there were at least 30 of them)  Pryor defends Lee on that.

Lee had "every right"  to "protect his property".

Lee was not hateful --Pryor seems to say -- but it was a "failure to communicate".  Lee just lacked the "cross cultural communication skills"  to get his message across- - that is, don't escape.  If he had just communicated a bit better, and the slaves did not try to escape, Lee would have never had whipped them.

It wasn't his fault. It was the slaves fault too.  They just had a failure to communicate here, just like in the movie Cool Hand Luke.


This was not news -- that slave owners (including Lee ) had girls tortured.

But it was news -- when the girl was so small the regular guy would not whip  her.

After the regular overseer (whose job it was to whip the slaves) refused -- because the girl was too small Lee had  her whipped by someone else, and paid that person to do so


Books by Pulitzer Prize Winning "historians" like Douglas Southall Freeman - considered the "authoritative" biographer of Lee -- not only claimed Lee was not a slave owner, but that Lee's "servants"  loved him "most of all" -- more than anyone else.

Lee's servants loved him!

How could that not be right?  How could it be that Lee's own papers show the slaves said he was "the worst man we ever knew."

But the Pultizer Prize winner says he had no slaves, and anyway, his slave loved him most of all.



It happens because  the Pulitizer prize winning "historian"  made up shit, but made it look "academic".

And if Lee had burned his slave ledgers, we would never know the different.


Pryor did not show the actual slave ledgers.

Maybe the Lee family had her sign a contract saying she won't show such things.  We don't know.  Pryor only called them - and that only once - "monthly account books."

 So it's not surprising Pryor did not show things like  Lee's sexually explicit letters to various women for years,  towomen not his wife.   

   But Pryor herself brings in the sex life of slaves and the white men around Lee's slave plantation.



Early on in the book she refers to sex between slaves and whites as "Dalliances."

Hint, to use a word like dalliance, Pryor almost had to look it up in a thesaurus.     Did she actually believe slave women were allowed to flirt and chose which man she would sleep with?

Later, and in her book,she writes that  rape was "common"  at Arlington.


"Coercion was those situations"

Pryor later even writes, regarding rapes, that "Coercion was used in those situations.

Coercion?   That means force.  But more, Pryor attaches no name, no "who did what" information.   

Who raped who, who coerced who?   What did they do?  Beat them, threaten to take their children?  Threaten to sell the children?   We do  know that such things happened on slave farms.  And we know --from Pryor --they happened at Arlington. 

But there is ample evidence that slavery was a violent enterprise, and it's stupid to believe otherwise. Pryor knew that. 

Pryor knew Lee's biggest problem was escaped slaves, because she wrote that.  How would she know?   Lee had to have written such information down,  like in letters to the bounty hunters, in letters to the people buying slaves from Lee -- yes, Lee sold slaves.

Pryor refers to "using" an auction to get rid of a "headstrong" slave.  Even then Pryor seeks to make Lee the victim. That darn headstrong slave!   

You could easily miss that Lee "used" auctions, and not grasp that Pryor could have listed (as Lee surely did) the names of slaves bought or sold at auction.

Pryor's entire reference to slave auctions was encompassed in this headstrong slave!   

Why give us this information in such a way?

Pryor does that -- that is her method, and her intention. To tell us  the "truth" -- he did use a slave auction.  But not tell us too much -- like a list of 40 children or parents sold at auction, if that were the case.



Freeman of course was not about to list the slave girls or prices or tell us of the torture of slaves.   Lee had no slaves, he had servants, and they loved him.  

So of course Lee did not pay bounty hunters, or pay to have slave girls whipped.

Of course Lee never sold a child or a mother as punishment.

Freeman's work was easier --just make shit up.

Pryor had to struggle.,

Lee "separated" families --which means he sold the child or the mother, ripping them apart, and it seems he did that as punishment.

He was a cruel sadistic man, from the slaves point of view, and they knew him.

Every page of Freeman's "work"  was tedious at how "adorational"  he was about Lee.   Lee was not just kind, but the most kind, not just chaste - but the most chaste.  Not just against slavery, but the most anti-slavery.

Page after page, chapter after chapter. 

Was any of it true?  It's hard to see that Freeman was anything other than a deliberately deceptive person -- perhaps because his father "served" with Lee, and Freeman got considerable wealth and fame for his "painstaking" research on Lee.

Uh - did he bother to read Lee's slave ledgers?  

For example, how can Lee's "servants"  love him most of all, when so many slaves tried to escape?    

And why didn't Freeman tell us that Lee had slave girls tortured and bought kidnapped women?   He had to have the information, he seemed to know every day, if not every hour, of Lee's life.   


Lee kept, apparently, very detailed slave ledgers. He got his personal belongings back from the Union after the war.  That would have been the best time to burn them.

But he didn't do it.


We all heard it.

Lee didn't own slaves.

He was loved by his "servants". 

He  was "violently against"  slavery  and prayed it would end soon.

And we heard much more -- that Lee prayed with a black woman when no one else would. That Lee knelt during battle with all his lieutenants-- as bombs blew up around them.

My next to  favorite-- that the only thing Lee wanted to do in life was to bring men to Christ.

But my all time favorite is this one -- Lee now sits at the right hand of Christ in heaven.

You can't out do that!



Elizabeth Pryor died in 2015 in a car accident, not that far from where Lee died.   As is right and just, Pryor  had an infinite number of ways to describe Lee's papers -- it was her book.  

She was under no obligation to show his slave ledgers or even call them "slave ledgers".   She could call them "monthly account books"  if she wanted to -- and that is what she did. 

She was under no obligation to be candid.   Nor was she.

 The slaves did not "completely agree" with Lee's theory of labor management".

That could be a winner if anyone ever had a contest for a way to make a joke out of the torture of slave girls. When you understand Lee had slaves tortured -- including slave girls so small the overseer refused to whip her -- this is a vile sentence and trick Pryor tried to pull.

Shame on ever reviewer who let her get away with this crap. Lee tortured slaves. He bought them. He sold them. Say that.



How clear could she have made it?

Pryor chose-- as always -- to be circumspect (clever, use euphemism, etc) on every thing.  But she was especially clever when it came to write about Lee's purchase of "others".  

Did  Lee buy kidnapped women (not his escaped slaves)  from bounty hunters who captured these women  illegally in the NORTH?   Well, it seems so.  He paid the bounty hunters for "others".  

And this was about people he paid his bounty hunters for.  IF they were escaped slaves, why call them "others?"

Pryor was speaking about bounty hunters Lee used in the NORTH -- they bought him "others".    And "technically"   Lee "may have broken the law".

Pryor claims Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paper work"   in relation to those "others".  

If those others were actually escaped slaves, she could have told us that easily enough.

We got "others".



Since Pryor could tell us the average price for slave girls of different ages, she had to  have  details prices --that Lee wrote down in his own slave ledgers.

Pryor did not get this information from a duck -- she got it from Lee himself.

How much for men, say, over 30? How much for girls under 16?  What was the average?

Pryor could tell.  But she only gave us tiny glimpese --when she could have showed us the entire list --of all the names, all the prices, and who was sold to who.

Who did Lee buy slaves from?

Yes, he bought them.  

No, he did not just "manage" his wife's slave.



Slavery, wrote Lee, was  as"spiritual liberty." 

Also pain -- that's right -- pain was "necessary for their instruction.



Elizabeth Pryor wrote an amazing book about Lee's slave ledgers and other papers.  Or as she called them -- "monthly account books".  

This is what the book looks like.



It will likely take another 150 years for the family to release the actual slave ledgers, dirty letters, or bounty hunter instructions.

Let's just hope future historians get to study everything Pryor did, and give us a more candid report, until we can see the slave ledges, etc., ourselves.



As you will see, Pryor defended Lee, meaning minimize his blame and paint him (as he did) the victim.  To Lee and most other slave owners, this was common. 

Human nature.

 Slaves are lucky --slaves are content, and it is Gods will for us to enslave them.  It was even Gods will -- according to other Southern leaders -- that it was a duty and a right to spread slavery and spread it for GOD.

That was standard fare -- and necessarily so -- cognitive dissonance, if you will, as man can not torture and enslave other human beings without a socially acceptable excuse -- and religious was that acceptable excuse. 

in every aspect of slavery -- having slaves did not bother Pryor, the discipline (torture) of slave women did not bother her.

But one thing that did seem to bother the hell out of her --was this.  White looking slave women.


Of all the amazing things Pryor writes about (in a very careful way)  is that over half of Lee's slaves (yes he had slaves)  were mulatto- -and some looked white.  

 So white, they could pass for white.

Turns out, as slave women were raped (we won't use euphemisms here -go elsewhere for that )  more and more white looking slaves were born, and therefore, more and more white women enslaved.

How many white looking slave women?   We don't know. No one does.  But we know some of these white looking women were at Arlington, and that Lee -- at his slave farm (which is what it was -Lee grew slaves, not vegitables, slaves were his cash crap --not tomatoes) even tried to escape.

Yes, white women tried to escape.  That seemed to piss the hell out of Pryor.




She could have easily said "Lee had no white looking slave girls".   

But she said the opposite, when you look closer.

Pryor told us that Lee had a stunningly high percentage of mulatto slaves-- over 50% of his slaves were mulatto.  

That is not saying it candidly --as she could have.  But at least we have that much.

Pryor also wrote that other plantations had 10% or so ratio of dark to light skinned slaves.  Lee had therefore drastically larger --OVER half.    Let that sink in OVER half.

And she related elsewhere -- as if it were an unimportant detail -- that girl who Lee said "could pass for white" had escaped, and the bounty hunters were looking for her.

So let's put that altogether -- as Pryor would not -- in one place.

Lee had white looking slave girls, most of his slaves were mixed race, and even white looking slave girls tried to escape -- and Lee had them chased by bounty hunters.

Pryor told us -- but not in such direct ways.

Lincoln spoke repeatedly (bet you did not know this) when pressed, about "where we are headed"  regarding skin tone and slavery. That slave plantations were the place "miscegenation" (rapeof slave women) was going on.

Lincoln was accused, repeatedly in the debates, that he would have "Niggers sleep with your daughters"  and others claimed this would "exterminate the white race.

One of the ways Lincoln responded was to point out that races mixed because of slavery. 

It did not happen in free states. In slave states, women were at the mercy of whatever white man wanted to use them for his sexual gratification -- and apparently, a number did, as you will see.

This topic was new in the late 1850's, as it became more clear, from witnesses, that there were white looking slaves in the South.

And this came up in newspapers and debates-- also exposed the fact, in as careful a way he could,  that it was the Southern plantations (slave farms) where the races "mixed".  Meaning, it's where black women got pregnant by white men, and gave birth.



There is no evidence -- Pryor reported no such thing -- that Lee sold white looking slaves at auction.  She did admit he used slave auctions, mentioning a sale of one disobedient slave. 

She also admitted Lee -- after he had one slave girl tortured (see below) sent her to a place (she did not make it clear where) that was known for even more brutal "discipline" than his -- and he was brutal indeed, using the whip and salt on the wounds type of "discipline"


Actually light skinned slaves sold well -and according to reports at the time, at least in part because men who went to whore houses, say, in New Orleans found the light skinned women more sexually attractive.   

Slave auctions -- including those auctions at Bedford Forrest property, would sell a light skinned woman to the highest bidder, even if she looked and had passed for white.  Forrest actually knew the woman as a white women, but she was accused of black parents or grand parents, and was taken to auction! 

Forrest refused to free her.  She was sold at auction.   If Lee did such things, Pryor did not say. The point is, slave owners did not free white looking humans, and Lee was no exception.  They were property -- a source of revenue, and that's how they were treated.

Those taken to auctions were taken to get the owner ready cash -- without concern if that white looking woman ended up sewing clothes, picking cotton, or working in a whore house. 

  There was nothing the woman could do, either, regardless of how white looking she was, or how black she was --she was a slave. And Lee himself followed that cash based logic. 


And Lee sent bounty hunters to find her.

Did the bounty hunters find her?  Pryor probably knew the answer -- but she coy about that.

As you will see Pryor writes about slave owners owning "increasingly white"  looking slaves -- and Lee most of all, since over 50% of his slaves (yes, he owned slaves) where mulatto. 

Lee owned slave girls that could pass for white. And at least one of those girls tried to escape. 

What did Lee do to girls that tried to escape?    He had them whipped -- as you will see.

Have you ever seen one of Lee's white looking slave girls?

Actually you have, her picture is before you.

Her mother was a slave,  as she was a slave.  The man holding her was supposedly her grandfather -- but a white man had to actually be the grandfather.  You don't go from that dark shade to nearly white in one generation.  That man could not have been the biological father of her mother.  Her mother was mulatto, as were most of the slaves at Arlington.

So almost certainly, that girl had a white skinned father. And that was not uncommon at Arlington. 


For over 80 years scholars knew about the two trunks of Lee papers --letters, ledgers,  all manner of Lee papers, but the Lee family would not let anyone study them.

Until now.


Scholars could only assume that Lee's ledgers and letters, to and from,  would back up the notion Lee was against slavery, kind to "servants" and a man of uncommon bravery, kindness, and honor.

Now, however, Pryor got to study those papers.....

Think of it -- Pryor had in her own hands Lee's own handwritten papers, letters, and slave ledgers.

Not copies -- but his actual slave ledgers, his actually letters to or from various women where Lee spoke of sexual explicit things and "joked" with them about certain sex tricks Pryor would not tell us about, but saw.

Yet she saw much, much more.

And studied them.


Pryor  had access to those not for a few days, but for a few months.  Time enough to connect his letter to a bounty hunter, to a newspaper report about Lee's torture of slave girls.

She had his papers -- including slave ledgers -- long enough to know how much he paid bounty hunters, on average, for which kind of slave.  Far more money for the capture of slave GIRLS for example, than slave men.

And she even  had Lee's instructions on how to best capture which slave, where they might go, who they might know.

Pryor knew -- from Lee's own papers-- that he hoped slave children that were sick would "die quickly"  and that Lee not only thought slaves should be tortured (disciplined) not only that he had them tortured (torture is the right word)  but that Lee insisted God (Providence) intended slaves to feel pain -- pain was necessary for their instruction.

Pryor knew, too, details she carefully inserted in a way not to alarm her readers -- like as soon as Lee took over punishment of slaves (aka "management")  he had a whipping post installed.  And while in that paragraph Pryor tries to sell the whipping post as a "silent reminder" to the slaves,  we fine out slaves were often (yes often) tied to that post and tortured.


  Yes, Lee used bounty hunters-- and slave auctions -- and the whip.  


In those papers -- remember, in Lee's own handwriting -- are confirmation of things no one could have dreamed of for the last 50 years.  

For the last 50 years, there has been this stupid (yes stupid) myth of kind or honorable slave owners, epitimized by Lee. 

If Lee was  "one of the good ones" -- the bad ones must have been hell on earth.  Because at Lee's slave farm (that is what Lee owned - a slave farm, we will not use euphemism here) things were horrible for slaves -- so bad that according to Lee's own papers, the slaves said he was "the worst man" we ever saw.  

 The natural tendency for almost every "history teacher"  is to yap about "Well, Lee was not as bad as some say, and not as good as some say".   Let's forget that crapola BS.

Lets' learn what Lee did.  Who he tortured, why, who he bought, and why, who he sold, and why, would be a good place to start.  So let's start there.


Slavery -- contrary to what some say - was a violent enterprise.  Lee for example, not only had slave girls whipped,  he also sold them away from their family for more punishment -- and used various means of torture, as you will see.  The whip -- and after the whip, he had salt applied to their fresh wounds, according to eyewitnesses before the Civil War, and after the Civil War.

Pryor told you that, and more, but in a very very careful way.



Carefully -- very carefully.

As you will see, Pryor was a tad careful how she related this information.  Her goal was not to shock the public, or even knock the halo off Lee's head.

Her goal seem to be to praise Lee as much as possible, and minimize her news about torture, rapes, bounty hunters, buying and selling women (which he did) and use of slave auctions.

She opened her book with in typical style of the goofy biographies we have always read about Lee --excessive flattery, comparing Lee with Richard the Lionhearted, and his touching letter to his children about the family.

Yet euphemisms  aside, Pryor does tell us things that refute virtually the basic myth of Robert E Lee.


We need to start over -- and this time, show things like who Lee had tortured, why, and what he boasted of at the time.

Show the prices, the payments to bounty hunters.


At the time -- most people don't grasp this because we don't teach it --Lincoln was hated by many for exactly the opposite of what people trash him for now.

In fact Lincoln got a bullet to the brain for a speech about voting rights for blacks. Yet that same speech -- the one he got a bullet to the brain for because it was so radical -- is used to day to teach that Lincoln didn't want or support voting rights for blacks.

Lincoln through his own actions and words was radical -- extreme for the time, as you will see.

Before he was killed (Booth changed his plan from kidnapping Lincoln to killing him after hearing the speech about voting rights for blacks) Lincoln also had a history of "radical" words and actions.

Do we teach Lincoln radical words and actions ?

Surprisingly not. Yet they were well known then.

Lincoln was called then   a "Nigger lover" a "Negro Worshipper" .

Lincoln would have your daughters "sleep with Niggers" Stephen A Douglas shouted -- as he ran back and forth on the debate stage at Charleston Illinois.

Lincoln was a "traitor" according to Douglas and others -- in speeches elsewhere. A traitor to his county and his race. Why? Because Lincoln refused to support the Mexican War (though he voted for pay to the soldiers). See more about Lincoln and Mexican war, belose.

Lincoln was "nothing but Niggerism" who would not only have your daughters sleep with "Niggers" but would make your wife walk down the street with "Niggers" and make your children go to school with "Niggers"

The most powerful speaker of the century, according to Horace Greeley, was Stephen A Douglas.  And it was Douglas who personally, repeatedly -- and with utmost theatrics as you will see -scream at Lincoln and to the crowd the horrors of Lincoln "obsession for equality"