Monday, September 10, 2012

Why did Lee pay 34 times as much money to capture slave girls, than slave men? He also bought women from hunters that kidnapped women in the North .







When are rapes "Dalliances" ?   

For Pryor, rapes are dalliances in the front of your book.   That's how she describes pregnancies early on, in her book.   Typical of Pryor, though, later she adds a few more words, references obliquely a few more facts, and comes up with "Rapes were common"   and forced.

Forced -- "Coersion was used in those situations" 


Elizabeth Pryor: The Lee family personally chose Pryor to be the first person since the  Civil War to actually study his papers.   Think of that.  

In an era that "historians" get giddy to learn the name of Lee's pet chicken, and give lectures on his chicken and how his men at it, and they all had a good laugh about it,  Pryor has a few things to tell you that actually matter.

Or should. 

But she doesn't want to shock you.     




Yeah yeah, you saw the movies. You saw the posters.  You heard the quotes.

But if that's all you know about Lee, you don't know shit.  Maybe it's time you did.   150 years of bullshit is enough.

You only know what you are told -- how else are you supposed to get information?

Unless we had video of Lee at the slave auctions (yes, he went) and heard him scream as slaves girls were whipped (yes, he did)   and watched him pay bounty hunters for 12 year old girls (Yes, he paid)   you would not know what he was like.

None of that material about Lee ever surfaced -- - over 200 biographies, too many articles in "scholarly" journals to count,. Instead, bullshit, partial bullshit, absolute bullshit, and "scholars" waxing profoundly using bullshit, is what you got so far.

Pryor is not out to smear Lee -- Lord knows, she could have. In fact, her goal is to keep his halo upon his head, keep the Lee family happy (she worked with the Lee family, literally side by side) and, likely, hope the Virginia Historical Society didn't trash her.  

Pryor reveals -- oh so carefully -- stunning horrors, and she calls them horrors at one point. But as you will see, Pryor was the artful dodger, the clever defense attorney, in ever page.

Still, Orwellian or not, clever or not, what Pyror revealed was stunning.  No, she didn't tell us the name of his chicken.  She was too busy revealing details, but in an Orwellian bit of deception.  What  use is language, as the scribe said, if you can't fool the hell out of people?

Carefully reveals what others never 
dared mention, before.


Not for Lee.

Lee's torture of slave girls -- including screaming at a girl the entire time he  had her tortured.   According to three -- 1, 2, 3 -- newspapers at the time, Lee made the paper because the regular overseer refused to whip a girl, because she was too young.

This is not some nasty rumor made up later, this was in newspapers at the time, and confirmed in Lee's own slave ledgers.  

   There is no question much of the "Lee Myth" is bullshit. Does that make it all bullshit?   WE don't know.  We just know we need to start over.

That's right, while "historians" have known about those newspapers reporting the tortures of the young girls,  they never told you.

Who the hell has slave girls tortured -- and screams at them? Who the hell pays a bounty hunter to whip girls, when the regular overseer -- who whips slaves regularly -- refused to do it?

Yet that is what Pryor found -- not one someone told her -- in Lee's slave ledgers.  Pryor found confirmation of that story -- a story no one bothered to tell you.

If she had done only that, it would be amazing, indeed.   But she found much much more....


Pryor found information  from Lee himself, in his own handwriting, that confirm those reports, including names, payments on those dates, for a man to whip those exact slaves.    And if that were not enough, after the war, reporters found and interviewed slaves that were there.


So no, it was NOT just some  newspapers at the time.   It was Lee's own slave ledgers confirming what the papers reported.

Here is a picture of one of Lee's white looking slave girls.

Pryor  had more.  She had over 1000 letters, some of them sexual in nature. Yes, Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to woman  for decades -- not to his wife, but to other women.


Lee kept slave ledgers -- apparently very specific and detailed slave  ledgers.  

Pryor held in her  hands those slave ledgers (which she calls "account books")  and thousands, yes thousands, of letters to and from him, including sexually explicit letters to various women, that he wrote for decades.

But Pryor refuses to call them slave ledgers.  Account books sound better -- right? From those slave ledgers, er, account books, Pryor saw the prices Lee paid to bounty hunters. We know because she told us how much Lee paid, kinda.

Why not show us  pictures of those pages?    Show us the prices?  Show us the name of the 12 year old girl he bought, and what he paid.

Nope.  But she does show a drawing Lee made, of a pump. 


why she showed that drawing, instead of picture of his prices, or his sexually explicit letters?

Because a picture is worth a thousand words, and Pryor is not about to trash Lee.  She writes about the horrors, rapes, and tortures, very carefully, Orwellian even.

She  is  not going to make it too clear that Lee had slave girls tortured, though it is in there, read her closely.

She could have, she could put drawings -- maybe pictures - of the girl tortured that way, or shown the number of girls or men he had whipped, he kept very detailed records.  We don't know for sure what  his records showed, but Pryor is, she had them and studied them, exhaustively.

Did he torture just a few?   No. Because later, Pryor admits that whipping was Lee's "preferred" method of discipline -- so there were other methods too.   What were those other methods?  Why not spit it out?


Pryor does say Lee had a whipping post installed -- now, how do you think she knew that? A duck told her?

No, something in Lee's hand written letters told her, or his slave ledgers. SOmething. She did not dream it up.

So give her props for even saying that much - but she claims that whipping post was a "silent witness" to the slaves.

No, we find out Lee had girls tortured, and screamed at them during their torture, as you will see. In fact, the girl we know he had tortured, was too young for his regular overseer to whip!!   That's right, Lee hired someone else to whip this girl because she was so young, the regular guy refused to whip her. 

Think that post was "silent"? 

Pryor had to carefully decide how to tell you each of these horrors.   She does, but in a way that few people even notice.   Ive had people insists the book never mentioned Lee had slaves whipped, because the prose is so careful, like the "silent witness" trick, and overall flatering narrative.

What if Pryor put drawings of the tortures? The rapes?  The white looking slave girls, being chased?

Nope. No way. She put a picture of his drawing of a pump.

It's not amazing that Pryor wrote so carefully.  It's amazing she got in, as much as she did.


Even after the Civil War, Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to various women.

Who ever dreamed such a thing?


All smiles, but the trunks held proof of torture, rape, and horrors. At Arlington. In Lee's own handwriting. Yes. Torture. Yes, rape.  Yes horrors.

But, much like Pryor refused to be candid about the slave ledgers, she is ever so careful  to not make it too horrible, or too clear.   


The song says, there are 50 ways to leave your lover.

Well, there are 10,000 ways to tell you Lee screamed at slave girls as he had them whipped.  There are 10,000 ways to tell you Lee owned white girls -- girls so light skinned, they could pass for white.

Pryor seemed oblivious to the fact that black women felt pain when whipped, too. And horror when raped. And dred when Lee sold their children.

But Pryor saved that word "horror" for what she cleverly said "Whites were increasingly enslaving other whites".  

Whites?  Which whites were enslaving other whites?  It was LEE. Lee owned the most light skinned slaves -- and slave girls - that we know of. Pryor tells  us that over 50% of Lee's slaves were mulatto. She could have given us the names, and prices, of those girls. Yes, she could have.

She does mention a light skinned girl was one of seven slaves Lee's hunters were chasing at one time.   What was her name?  How old was she?

And, how many slaves, overall, escaped?

She could have told us.  She used those slave ledgers very likely more than anything else she had, she could relate his slave ledger entries to newspapers and letters.

That's right -- Lee's many (thousands) of letters, dated, would line up with his slave ledgers, which he also dated. His handwriting, his slave ledgers, his dates.

Pryor never does make it clear how much stunning data she had -- FROM LEE HIMSELF.   

Not someone else trying to make Lee look bad.  Quit the reverse. This is Elizabeth Pryor, Lee devotee, trying to keep Lee's halo upon his head.

God bless her, she tries so hard.

Still Pryor calls them horrors -- horrors of rape, horrors of torture, but watch how carefully she uses the word "horror".

Yes, she does  use it. 


Lee never wrote he was against slavery -- in fact, the letter that "scholars" often show, Lee justified slavery and the torture of slavery, tenaciously, though in velvet gloves.

Yes, Lee did write that slavery was a political and moral evil -- but read the rest of his letter!!   Slavery is a religious liberty, and God intended slaves to "feel painful discipline."

Pain, Lee wrote, was "necessary for their instruction".

Remember, this is in a letter that "scholars" claimed proved he was against slavery.  

Wait till you see what's in Lee's letters that Pryor found -- his sexually explicit letters, his letters to and from bounty hunters.



His wife owned  those slaves, and when Lee took over, he started having them whipped. Yes, he did.  He had  whipping post installed, and used it.

In fact, Pryor writes later in the book that whipping was Lee's "preferred" discipline.   Artfully, she avoids detailing too much  his full range of torture, which included salt and screaming at slaves during their torture.

Yes, according to three newspapers at the time -- and verified in Lee's own papers -- Lee had girls tortured.   In the case that made the paper, he had a girl tortured, who the overseer refused to whip.
Thats right -- his overseer REFUSED Lee's order to whip one girl, because she was too young.  

Lee had her whipped anyway, and screamed at her during her torture.  Before the torture, he told her she would never forget the lesson he was about to give her.   

How do we know those newspapers didn't make it up?  Because Lee wrote about those details-- Pryor wont show us, but she confirms the details match the newspaper accounts. 

And further, after the war, reporters at Arlington asked former slaves about those reports in newspapers, and the former slaves confirmed it.

But the big confirmation, is Lee's own handwritten papers.



Lee he wrote his wife that slaves needed to be tortured (painful discipline)  that God intended it.   Apparently she questioned him, because slaves had complained to her, about Lee's brutal methods.  Lee's wife grew up with most of these slaves, she played with them.  She was fond of them personally.

And when Lee took over, he used his dad's methods -- brutality. Lee's father had  a slave girl hung, for knocking down a white man.  Did she knock him down cause he was whipping her ? Raping her? Selling her child?

No one cared enough to even write down, why she would knock down a white man, she did, and Lee's father had her hung. She was 15 years old.

Don't believe that bullshit about mild slavery. 

Lee, in his letter, also bluntly claimed slavery was a "religious liberty"  and that slaves were lucky to be slaves.   Mostly, Lee told his wife (as many slave owners did) that we should not question GOD.  God intended slavery, God will end it, in "His time".  

It was evil, said Lee, for men to try to end it.  

Essentially Lee was telling her -- Oh, Im just doing what God wants. Don't worry about it.

But Lee could write very unreligous letters too. He wrote religious BS to his wife, but he didn't write religious bs to everyone.  He discussed sex tricks, and even his son's sex life -- but Pryor won't be more specific.  She does admit he wrote these kinds of letters FOR DECADES and to various women.

Yeah, Lee.  That guy. 

Lee also recorded sales of, and made reference to, tortures and discipline of slaves, in his own slave ledgers.  Lee did indeed use slave hunters, and bought slave girls from more than one source.   Yes, he did.

And yes, he bought slaves. He also bought people he turned into slaves -- watch Pryor handle that one.

But all that is unremarkable, compared to what he wrote about slave girls. About slave sales. About, and to, bounty hunters.

Yes, Pryor should have, and could have, given us candid information, even actual photos of his slave ledgers, page by page, and his sexual letters.

But the most interesting for her to show, would have been the letters to and from his bounty hunters.


The Union Army collected Lee's personal belongings, and stored them giving them back to the family after the war.

Historians knew about the two trunks of papers -- seen below.  But now one was allowed to study them, at length.

Everyone assumed that those letters (slave ledgers too) would be like the stuff we learned about Lee from books written after the Civil War.

Would the two trunks of papers confirm "historians" such as Douglas Southall Freeman, a prize winning biographer, who wrote extensively about Lee?

Not so much.

In fact, to be blunt, not at all.


 Elizabeth Pryor, a Lee devotee, who had access to his dirty letters and slave ledgers, suggested the mixed race children at Lee's slave plantation came from "dalliances".

That's a metaphor for her approach to nearly everthing, early in the book. SHe begins, as most flattering biographies do, comparing Lee to Richard the Lionhearted.

That's not a stretch -- other biographers, seriously, have compared him with Jesus Christ, claiming with a straight face, in total self confidence, that Lee "now sits at the right hand of Christ his Lord" 

Lee was not just the best soldier in history -- he was "by far" the best Christian in US history.  

Books after Lee's death essentially competed, in 1880's and 1890s, to flatter Lee, more than the other authors.   That's right -- dalliance. A romantic, light  hearted flirtation, not necessarily sexual. 

That was  how she posited it, in the FRONT of the book. But toward the back of the book, she is a bit more candid -- rape was common.  And it was common, and violent.   Pryor says one thing in one part of the books, another later.   But she had to.  

You can see why -- here. 

We all know about Orwellian double speak.   But did you know the goofy fraudulent use of language didn't start with Orwell, or Lewis Carroll, or Mark Twain, or Voltaire.   They all exposed it, but somehow we never even question if the history of "Southern heroes"  might be a tad, you know, bonkers.


Since we only know what we are told -- and we were not at Lee's slave barn, we did not talk to his bounty hunters, or slaves, or even know he wrote sexually explicit letters to various women, his entire life.

There was  never a group of historians claiming Lee had girls tortured, and spent extra for certain girls, and wrote sexually explicit letters.   We did know he turne free people into slaves, during the Civil War, by ordering the capture of free blacks in the North.  He had those poor souls chained, and taken South, and sold as slaves. Yes, we knew that.

But no one had a narrative of torture, rape, cruelty, by him and others, at Arlington.  So how would we know?

We are always told  -- so we assume it's true -- that Lee was "a man of God".   In fact, Pulitzer Prize Winner Douglas Southall Freeman, insisted Lee "had no faults to probe"  and "sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord"

Turns out nothing -- and I mean nothing -- was and is too goofy to attribute to Lee.  Not just chaste, Freeman insisted, but the most chaste. Not just kind, but the most kind.  Not just devout, but the most devout.

Lee saving baby sparrows in war. Lee and all his men getting off their horses during battle, for long silent prayer, as bombs blew up around them -- they were spared by the hand of God, is the implication of that story.

And every one of t hose things --"historians" -- believed. 

Till now.

Elizabeth Pryor was not out to destroy Lee's status as "the Greatest Christian by far" -- (Lee was the best soldier in history, Freeman told us, but "by far" a better Christian).

Well, do the most devout Christians really pay for slave girls? Then have them tortured -- and torture is the right word.   Do they really pay extra for certain girls?  Why would Lee pay so much extra for girls of a certain age, as apparently he did, per his slave ledgers.


 Pryor begins her book all lovey dovey.   Lee as Richard the Lionhearted, Lee being adored by his children, and writing them lovely letters extolling them to virtue.   Pryor is not about to tell you, at that point, that a few feet from Lee, as he wrote, was a slave whipping post, and on the desk, on which he wrote, was almost certainly the slave ledgers Pryor had, showing the prices he paid, and hunters he paid.  

The slave ledgers even confirm  -- in Lee's own hand -- the tortures and purchase of slave girls, as you will see.

But at first, Pryor is doing the Orwellian dance of presenting Lee much as the myth claimed -- much as Pryor learned, as she was "educated".    The Lee family picked her for a reason, most likely because she was not about to be blunt, much less too blunt, about what she found in Lee's own handwritten slave ledgers and letters --- including sexually explicit letters to various women, joking about sex tricks, and even about his son's sexual prowess.

When is the last time you wrote several women sexually explicit letters, not your wife?   And in those, joked about your son's sexual prowess.

Pryor does not make it clear what prowess the son showed, sexually -- was it with a slave girl?   There was a lot of rape at Arlington, as we find out later.But Pryor at first calls posits that light skinned slave children came  from "dalliances".

Fred Astaire had a "dalliance" --  casual flirty, fun, and not necessarily sexual, relationships.  So that's what happened to those slave women!!!

Not so bad, right?  Dalliances!"

1000 ways to say torture and rape.   There was rape -- a lot of it. There was torture -- a lot of it.  Slavery was a violent enterprise, by violent men, no matter what shit they told you bullshit movies like Gone With The Wind.

And no,  it was not just violence to stop escapes. Pryor actually blames slave girls for trying to escape!    Lee had "every right" to protect his "property".   Un real, but she wrote that.

 Pryor does write -- in Orwellian double speak, that was "coercion was used in those situations".   How clever -- coercion was used.   What "situations"?    Who did what?  She wont say.   Remember that.  Pryor did not dream up "coercion was used in those situations" except by conscious effort.  She held in her hands actual slave ledgers, letters to and from bounty hunters, very likely even notes from his wife or other women decrying the rapes.  Show those!  

Pryor could, and should, show us what she had in her hands, which led her to reduce it to the tame "coersion was used in those situations".   Who was raped? By who? How does she know? Show what the hell you saw!!  

But at least she gave us that much. Reluctantly, and Orewllian, but she gave us something. Rape was common, and forced.   No it was not dalliances, as she said.   Plus, slave owners were known to demand sexual favors or they would sell the child, sell the mother. Yes, that happened.  Yes, those "religious" men who pretended to love Jesus and enslaved for the Lord (really, they said they were doing the will of GOD -- Lee claimed that)  did rape women.  The religious bullshit was a cover, a cloak, they used to tell each other and their wives.  

"Passive voice. Lee or his men rape girls in the slave barns, and she calls those "situations"  and adds the word "coercion".

At one end of the spectrum, she could have said "The bounty hunter Williams held the girls arm downs while Lee had her whipped for fighting back against rape" .  Yes, you could be whipped for resisting rape.  Alarming -- shocking, but that is the kind of thing that happened.

 Pryor uses these words --- "Coercion was used in those situations"   Pretty clever.    For her so say that, remember this, she had to see something in Lee's own papers, letters to or from him, most likely.   She won't make it clear.

We just get the tepid, not blaming, non specific "coercion was used in those situations". 

                    ryor uses the least offensive, the most disarming.  Sort of like if your mother gave a speech how wonderful you were, after a life of crime. 

You know, kidding around in the slave barn, bringing the slave woman flowers, reading her poetry, taking her to lunch. Songs playing in the back ground.  A few jokes about George Washington and the price of slave ships.

Some dancing, cheek to cheek.   Then, one thing leads to another, they find themselves in the moonlight, and hormones take over.

Right? Dalliances!!   Pryor actually wrote that word to explain the sex between races.

Do you think she thought long and hard how to tell you about the rapes, the light skinned slaves, so light they could pass for white?  And that Lee owned them?

You are damn right she thought long and hard. She didn't dream up the word dalliance, after reading his dirty letters and slave ledgers, by chance.  There is a good bet she had a thesaurus, and used it.




Pryor isn't taking any chances - while she does admit, in very clever ways, Lee had girls tortured (no, she does not call it torture), she always leaves wiggle room. She "tells" without telling bluntly.

Pryor uses her most slick double speak, (see below) about his purchase of girls from the North, that Lee's hunters sold him. Yes, Lee bought girls that his  bounty  hunters found illegally in the North -- see below for her wizardry how she relates that.

About the tortures --she blamed the torture of slave girls on "Lee's poor cross cultural communication skills".   

She actually wrote that.

Yeah, Lee had slave girls whipped, and more.  But oh, that was just a result of poor cross cultural communication!!

In fact, Pyror's book is more of a study on how clever one person can be, when trying to white wash torture, rape, and cruelty. 

No this is not overstated. Lee, as you will see, (and Pryor reluctantly admits) was an ususually cruel slave owner.  He was not moderate.  

The myth of a reluctant slave owner, or a guy who didn't own any slaves, is total bullshit. Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.

The evidence -- Lee's own hand written letters and slave ledgers -- just blow away the bullshit.   

Pryor should show them, of course.  But she won't.   She isn't about to.  She studied them -- at length.  And her book about them is called "Reading the Man".

If only for the girls Lee had tortured -- that should be enough for Pryor to be candid, and not use Orwellian double speak. It is, after all, 150 years, no one need be offended at this truth.  Let's get the truth out, ugly or not.

Only later, in the back of the book, does she admit slave women -- even at Arlington -- were raped.  Maybe especially at Arlington, women were raped,  and white  looking children were sold.

Rape. At Arlington. Common. 

Not dalliances, but night time plunder of the women's shacks at night, the white  man literally picking whatever woman he wanted.  Whatever age.  Whatever he wanted. 

But but but -- those were men of GOD, right?   You'll soon see this "God game" slave owners played, including Lee. 

Welcome to history, not bullshit. Enough f-ing bullshit already. 

Pryor dances around that, too, like everything. But she mentions it.

Maybe nothing is more amazing this his white looking slave girls.

That's right, Lee owned girls that looked white, could pass for white.

Oh -- don't tell me, you didn't know?   Lee was not the only one with very light looking slave girls, in fact, light skinned slave girls sold for more.  Can you guess why?  Well it had to do with slave auctions.  Light skinned slave girls sold for more, because whore house owners bought them.

Go ahead, and guess why?

Pryor doesnt tell us that, or even suggest it.  But that was known at the time, whore houses, especially in New Orleans, apparently "valued" slave girls.  At slave auctions, no one cared why you bought this girl or that.

Pryor does reveals that Lee had white looking slave women, she does not mention Lee's name on that page -- it SEEMS like she could be talking about slave owners in general.  She does not say "Lee wrote this about this slave girl, this price, paid to this bounty hunter".

But she is writing about LEE -- using his slave ledgers, his letters.  And she does mention that Lee's records show over half -- OVER HALF -- his slaves were mulatto.  How mulatto?  She won't say.   How much over half? She won't say.

But she did admit Lee's percentage of light skinned slaves was far higher than average. And she did admit Lee had white looking slave girl.  She could probably tell us her name, where Lee bought  her, how much he paid, and how much her children were wroth.  What kind of money did Lee make from her?

See, Lee did not raise food to sell.  No one told you this, did they?

Lee's product, his cash crop, was flesh and labor. Flesh and labor of SLAVES.

Pryor could have told you that -- but no one else very did either.

 Artful dodging, to the point of Orwellian double speak, but she does get information in. 

Yes, Lee had white looking slave girls. He bought girls. His bounty hunters sold him girls they caught in the North.

Watch how carefully Pryor slips that in -- she is artful, but at least she tell us.


This is not so much about Lee -- as the amazing ability of "historians" to repeat bullshit with utter self confidence, and make themselves believe it.


Historian Alan Nolan wrote 20 years ago that we needed to "start over" on Lee -- because what was written was not scholarship, but essentially idolatry repeated, and even embellished.

Nolan, however, did not have a clue how right he was. He never saw the slave ledgers or dirty letters or reports from bounty hunters.

Nolan never saw the payments for kidnapped women, for example.  Pryor did.


Yeah, you thought slavery some nice thing, for Jesus. In fact, in a famous letter to his wife, Lee tried to spin his  attention to slaves as ordained by God. The standard response, by the way, Lee didn't make it up. 

Lee wrote that slaves were lucky to be slaves because they would know the Lord, and God ordained it.  Slavery was a "religious liberty" he claimed.

Idiotically, that same letter is one some people use to "prove" Lee was against slavery, because one sentence said "slavery is a moral and political evil".


Read the rest of the letter!!!  Better yet, learn his other letters, including dirty letters, and what he did.  But in that letter, Lee goes on to justify not just slavery, but the torture of slaves.  Pain,  Lee wrote, was necessary for their instruction. 

God "knew and intended" slaves would feel "painful discipline"  Lee wrote.

So -- how the hell to "historians" use that letter to "prove" Lee was against slavery?  

Simple, they just pick one part of it.  And, they don't tell you slave rape and slave torture was common at Arlington.  Then, over and over, people repeat the bullshit that Lee was "against slavery". 

No he wasn't. Lee was quite INTO slavery. In fact, per his papers, it's clear Lee never freed anyone that was worth money to him. Plus, he resisted three different court orders to free the slaves per the will.

But he also owned slaves OUTSIDE the will.  

In other words, they pick what they want, and leave the truth behind.

Do you even know what Lee grew at Arlington? Hell no you don't.

This was not a produce farm.   Lee's plantation sold -- guess what -- SLAVES.   They sold and bought flesh, human flesh.   No one ever told you even that much did they?  Lee rented out slaves, sold them at auction, and bought them from bounty hunters.

Pryor is artful about fleeing from even that -- she claimed Lee "always wanted to be a planter".   Planter?   She is being Orwellian. He always wanted to own s big slave plantation.   And he married a rather ugly woman to get it.  Yes, he did.  She owned the largest slave plantation in Virginia, with the biggest masnsion.

Lee's father had owned a large plantation too, but he he whored and drank it away.  He was a crook. Did you know that?   He would sell slaves to someone, then help them escape, and sell them again.

Lee's father had a slave girl hung, too, apparently for fighting back against rape.  She knocked a white man down -- no one even bothered to record why she would do that. She knocked a white man down.

The penalty for that was death -- as you will see,  Lee's father had her hung.

Pryor tried to do that -- Pryor tried to spin it everything so that Lee was not at fault. But she just had too much material in her hands. She could not cover it all up.

Lee's slave ledgers show  he paid much more for slave girls, and was obsessed with capture of escaped girls.   Now, why would Lee pay so much more for girls? Why get obsessed with escaped girls? 

Go on, take your time. You will figure it out.



Rape was common. 

That had to be why  over half the slaves Lee owned (yes he owned slaves, and bought more) were lighter skinned. Some white looking girls.  Lee himself wrote about girls that could pass for white.

But Pryor told things like that in a clever way, very casually, far in the back of the book.  Her overall narrative is disingenuous, and flattering. You can read the book casually, and not notice.  In a way, Pryor writes a book, within a book.

Some slave girls looked white -- which means, they WERE white. Skin tone is a one of over 300000 DNA traits.  White looking girls, that Lee owned, were white girls. 

If a girl looked white, she was white. But Lee bought them anyway, and as you will see, sold them anyway. Yes, Lee bought and sold slaves.

No, that bullshit about Lee's not owning slavery was never true.  

And his own hand written records and letters prove it.

Aint fact stubborn things?



Pryor found the idea of white looking slave girls being raped, or whipped for trying to escape (as they were) was a "horror".  

Whites were "increasingly enslaving other whites."

Bet you didn't know that. Bet you had no clue that was an issue -- and Lincoln spoke of it.  His political enemies said blacks should be enslaved because freedom might mean mixing races.  Lincoln pointed out, the races mixed plenty from slavery.   And he was right, in fact, slave owners regularly raped slave girls. 

Someone white was raping black women regularly, as evidenced by the number and percentage of slave girls Lee owned, that had white looking, or lighter skinned, children.

Whites, Pryor wrote (refering to Lee, but not by name) were "increasingly enslaving other whites. Given the number of Lee slaves (over 200) and the % of white or light skinned slaves (over 50% mulatto)  Lee may have owned more light skinned girls than anyone else in US history.

Oh -- and by the way, he sent bounty hunters after slave girls that tried to escape.  Another by the way -- he had them tortured.

Pryor reveals many interesting facts about Lee, quite unlike the bullshit we were fed before. But Pryor does it, in as gentle a way possible, -- like Lee paid much more for female slaves.

Oh wait, a bit more. 


One of Lee's light skinned -- white looking - slave girls.
Pryor COULD tell you how much Lee sold her for.
She had that information. 

Oh -- and he bought women that were free women living-in-the-North free.  Yes, blacks were kidnapped in the North, a few miles from Lee's slave plantation.  Lee's hunters caught them,while searching for escaped slaves, and sold them to Lee.

We always knew, and historians admitted, Lee had his soldiers capture free women (and men) in the North during the Civil War, to be taken South and sold as slaves.   Lee is therefore the only person in US history to have civilians captured in war, taken to another country (as he thought)  and sold into slavery.

Yeah, Lee turned people INTO slaves during the Civil War.

But -- he was doing that before the war too.  No one told you that, did they? Hell no.

Kinda ruins that myth about Lee not owning slaves, being against slavery, blah blah,.

 I have yet to learn who got the money -from those sales. But I bet the initials are "REL" . Someone had to get the money, right?

Amazingly, Pryor might have seen that transaction, too, at least mentioned in his letters.

If you think "history" can't be distorted bullshit, this should be an example to show you, oh hell yes, it can.

Thus far in US history, we are told layer after lay of accolades about Lee -- which would not be so bad, if any were true. But as you will see, it's unlikely any of them are true.

Repeating myths do not make them true.,


Now we know, from his own papers, Lee was an old hand at kidnapping women from before the Civil War. He just paid others for the women. Yes, he did.  

But how evil is that? Once you insist God ordained you to enslave others, once you torture women, sell children, it takes no great leap to buy women brought to you by bounty hunters, which he did.

How do we know Lee bought women his hunters kidnapped in the North?

 Pryor found it in his slave ledgers, his own records. Lee's letters to, and from, his bounty hunters were part of the "thousands" of letters Pryor had access to.

Yes, she should have showed them. Yes, she should have been candid.

But she decided to go with "and others"  referring to people Lee's bounty hunters found in the North, while looking for escaped slaves.



There is SOME reason Lee paid more for young girl slaves.  You think about it, real hard. You will figure it out.  No, Pryor didn't tell us why -- did she know?

Could Pryor tell, from Lee's letters, from letters to Lee, why he paid more for this girl, or that?  

We do know Lee wrote to his bounty hunters details of where they might catch the girls. How would he even know that? And why was he so focused on girls, that he would hire hunters, pay them very well, much better for female slaves?

Was Lee stupid? Was he drunk?  No. There was a damn good reason he paid more for some, less for others.

Slave women -- especially light skinned slave girls -- sold well, for high prices, at auction. Did you know that?   Yes, it's true. Attractive slave girls sold well, indeed.

Gee- - who would have thought that? Well, people spoke of it then, and there had to be a reason.

That  he bought slaves is incontrovertible, it's in his slave ledgers, which she refuses to show.  That he used bounty hunters is also incontrovertible, for the same reason.

Tortured is the right word. Pryor claims Lee "had every right" to "discipline" his slaves.  She even blames the slave girls for their torture.

Orwellian double speak is absolutely necessary in humans to do things like torture -- and Lee used it. God "knew and intended" slaves "feel painful discipline"  Lee wrote.

Lee also wrote "Pain is necessary for their instruction".


Not Lee's slave ledger. 

Yes,Lee had slaves, and bought more, and paid bounty hunters regularly. His own hand written records show that.

Oh yeah, you were told Lee didn't own any slaves, right?  That he just "managed" his wife's and he freed them "long before the Civil War".

Turns out, none of that is true.  Lee had slaves all through the civil war.  In fact he had three or four slaves as "body servants" during the war.

And during the war, he was still trying to make money off the slaves he had rented out.

But more amazing, Lee bought slave girls from bounty hunters, and used slave auctions.

There is more -- much much more. 

Pryor is very careful how she relates all this, and other facts, but put those facts together, and it seems clear -- we were fed total bullshit about Lee.

  More about that later..


Why would Lee paid so much more, drastically more, for young female slaves, escapees or otherwise. Yes, Lee paid for girls that had never escaped, as you will see.

Why?  Why pay so much more?  Was he stupid?  Was he a bad businessman?

There had to be a reason. Learn more about Lee, and see if you can guess what that reason might be. 

under construction -- come back later, not ready now --


Repeating myths
don't make them true 

Because Pryor is an artful wordsmith, and does not actually show anything concrete,  we need more information.

She sure didn't give us any clarity, and that seems deliberate.  Still, she gave us much more than anyone before even dared.

We need to have Lee family or whoever has them, publish his dirty letters (yes Lee wrote dirty letters) and more, his slave ledgers.


Show what he wrote to bounty hunters. Show how much he paid for certain girls.

Short of a video of Lee's actions and laughter at slave auctions, we'd be hard pressed to know what the  hell was really going on.

We know the "for the public" BS.   But what was going on, per his slave ledgers, dirty letters, and bounty hunter payments.


Pryor had all the necessary materials in her hands -- two trunks of Lee's own papers, slave ledgers, and sexually explicit letters.

She studied them - her book is about them.   

But she is not candid, for example, she won't even call them slave ledgers.  She calls them, only once, account books.   But they were account books about his slaves -- she can tell us the prices, the names, and who he paid, on any given date, it seems.



 You weren't at Arlington,  nor was anyone you know. But Lee was -- and he wrote it all down. If he had not, history would show, forever, the bullshit myths.

So it was good, even though this will take a while, for the truth to come out. 

So far --we depended on "historians" to tell us how wonderful Robert E Lee was.   If and when Lee's actual papers are made public, the big loser won't be Lee, it will be the "historians" who fed us so much bullshit for so long.

Lee was doing as  his father did -- Lee did what got him power and prestige, and he could cover it up with religious sounding bullshit excuses.  So what -- many hundreds, thousands, of people did that.

But why on earth have so many "historians" just repeated the bullshit?  While Pryor's material -- Lee's letters, and slave ledgers -- are a big deal, some of this, the worst of this, was known all along.

Like Lee's use of slaves, and how he had his soldiers turn free people into slaves, during the war.  

What Pryor found -- Lee had slave girls tortured (yes tortured) only because of his "poor cross cultural communication skills".

Odd that a man who didn't own slaves (according to the myth) would spend so much time and money chasing escaped slaves.

Odder still, Lee would create new slaves --  see below -- from the women and children his hunters found illegally, in the North.  Pryor has an artful way of telling us about them, she calls them simply "others"  that Lee's "bondsmen" got in the North. 

Bondsmen are hunters, and they didn't apparently give a shit if the black folks they grabbed were his escaped slaves, or not.

Pryor didn't use the word torture, of course, she hardly used the word discipline.   And when she said that, she made so many excuses, in effect the girls Lee bought and whipped, were at fault. Really.  And Lee was the victim.

That's how Lee portrayed himself, by the way, that he was doing the Lord's work -- and slaves should be thankful. Really. That's how the mind works, when you torture, rape, enslave.  Slave owners mental gymnastics  were only possible  via Orwellian bullshit, which still fills our history books, and biographies of slave owners, like Lee. 

Still, Pryor  admits Lee  had slave girls whipped -- without herself using that word. 


Pryor is not out to tarnish Lee, much less remove the  halo from his head.   Rather, her goal is to appease the Lee family, who she worked with, and not have her car bombed, by Virginia Historical Society.  

Glad to report, Pryor's car is fine.  

Pryor could have told us of Lee's tortures, bounties, dirty letters, and even rapes (yes rapes) in a thousand ways.  She chose the way most travelled -- Orwellian double speak.

But Pryor still managed to get in amazing details - almost as if she wrote two books, in one.  No one else has ever dared to admit as much, however Orwellian, and however clever.

Pryor often posits the excuses before she even relates the offenses, a clever maneuver indeed.

And when she must, she does, provide outright excuses. She claimed Lee tortured (disciplined) slave girls "only because of his poor cross cultural communication skills"

Really.  She wrote that. 


If ever in history of biographies, anyone had the hots for someone, Freeman had the hots for Lee. Page after page -- often hard to read for the lush almost romantic attachement he had for "Lee".  Only the Lee Freeman wrote about, never walked this earth, except in Freeman's lustful head.

Lee's slaves did NOT like or love him. In fact, Pryor tells us, Lee's slaves said Lee was "the worst man we ever seen."  She could have given us more detail, but she wasn't "into" making such things too clear.

Pryor didn't get this information from a duck, she didn't get it from a "historian"  she didn't get it from his neighbors.  She got it from LEE.   Kinda makes you wonder where all this bullshit came from about Lee?

Well, it didn't come from anything accurate or truthful.

We need to see the actual slave ledgers and dirty letters, see the letters to and from bounty hunters, etc.  See the receipts for slave auctions, how much he paid for "others"  that his hunters brought Lee.

Pryor just gave us the most cleaned up, sanitized version she could.   Come on, let's see what Lee wrote down ourselves. Enough bullshit. 150 years is enough. 

Pryor leaves out a few things, like Lee's father had slave girls hung, for knocking down a white man.   Maybe the girls didn't like being slaves, being subjected to whippings, and rape ( rape was common, as you will see, even at Arlington)

In Pryor's prose, Lee is the victim. She actually takes his side, and blames the slaves, and slave girls, for trying to escape. 

Only by careful reading -- every page, every footnote -- can you understand just how often Lee had slaves tortured, and torture is the right word. You might feel better if we used Orwellian double speak, but that we will not do.

Lee not only had slave girls tortured -- at least once, his regular overseer refused to whip a girl because she was so young -- that's right, too young to whip.

Lee had her whipped anyway, by a bounty hunter standing there watching the "fun".  Yes, whipping slaves was a spectator sport.  

Lee screamed at the girl as his hired bounty hunter had whipped her. 

Almost 200,000 men from the South fought for the Union.

Yet we honor a man, with state holidays, who had slave girls tortured, as he screamed at them. 

Talk about some boooshit  history.

Learn facts -- not myths.





Let's hope his family doesn't destroy them now. 




So Pryor is not going against the grain of "historians" who dance around the basic truth.  You can read entire biographies of Lee, and not see the word slave in them.   

Pryor is radical, however, in fact, no one even comes close, in revealing facts, however artful she is.

In fact, "history" books about Lee, and the Southern heroes, are basically that way.  Simple declarative sentences, if any Southern apologist ever wrote one by mistake, are edited out, apparently. 

"Whites," wrote Pryor, talking about Lee, "were increasingly enslaving other whites."

Yes, whites WERE enslaving whites, as some children were so light skinned they could pass for white.   Guess what Lee did with such girls? 

Pryor won't tell us, but she does mention that light colored slaves escaped, and Lee had them chased by bounty hunters.  Lee had dozens of slaves escape, and was apparently so enraged and obsessed, he had ongoing relationship with bounty hunters, evidenced by his letters to and from them.

Why pussy foot around with double talk? Show us the damn ledgers and letters to and from the bounty hunters.  Just kidding, we already know why she won't show us the letters and slave ledgers -- because they are drastically worse than how she cleverly writes around them.   Not about them, she writes AROUND them.

But most amazing - of many amazing things -- Lee turned women into slaves  before the Civil War, hiring kidnappers to go North, and find women-- free women, living in the North -- to turn into slaves. Yes he did.

And Pryor tells us -- in a very clever way  

That's right -- hunters ( they were hunters, they hunted humans for men like Lee)  didn't much care if the black person they caught in the North was escaped slave, or free and born in the North.  

You aren't told this was even an issue -- but it sure as hell was, and Lee was one of the buyers.  Lee's  hunters didn't just capture his escaped slave -- they captured "OTHERS"  as Pryor so delicately put it.

So you didn't know Robert E Lee is the only commander in US history, to have people caught in an enemy territory (North was enemy to Lee)  then taken to his country (South) and sold as slaves.

But Lee was already doing that, with his private hunters, before the Civil War.  

Yes, this seems preposterous, but it's not.

Yes, Lee turned women into slaves, that were never slaves, until Lee bought them from kidnappers.


This information does not come from some neighbor, someone later, someone who hated Lee. The information comes from Lee -- his own words, in his own  handwriting.  Remember that.

Pryor should show the slave ledgers and letters. Maybe the family would  not let her.  And show the parts about buying women Northern women, that his hunters captures. 

 Pryor does reveal --- kinda  sorta -- rapes, tortures, kidnappings, all done by Lee or with his approval.  But give her credit -- no one else dared "go there" -- no matter  how clever and Orwellian she writes, she got it in.

Now, we need someone else to examine the slave ledgers and dirty letters -- or better yet, publish them all. 


Pryor is very very careful how she reveals it.  Her book is as amazing for HOW she tells about it, as it is, WHAT she reveals.


Make no mistake, Pryor does her best not to offend Lee,  his family, or  to knock the halo from atop his head.    

Her book starts with a self serving letter from Lee, and she compares him  to Richard the Lionhearted. Her narrative is so flattering, her words so careful, that you can miss just how stunning the basic facts are.  Lee tortured, Lee bought, Lee owned. Lee paid bounty hunters and kidnappers.

Lee had girls tortured.

Lee screamed at girls as he had them toturtured.

You won't see such sentences, nor sentence structures, in Pryor's book. You will find clever double speak, excuses, and slights of hand, but the facts are there, nibbles of truth, cooked in a giant pot of bullshit stew.

As far as possible, Pryor pushed the narrative of in the style of other Lee devotees. But the details, details she reveals oh so carefully, are mind numbing.

If the details are correct --  Lee had an obsession with slave girls.  He paid hunters to capture them, paying much more for certain girls.

Why?  Why pay so much more for young girls?  Could they pick 600% more cotton?

Really -- Lee paid much more for capture, and purchase, of certain aged girls.  WHY?    Was he stupid?  Did he have intellectual conversations with them?

Could the girls help him with his math on underwater pressure, for building bridge supports?

There was some reason Lee paid more -- so what could that reason be?

You will figure it out -- take your time.

Doesn't  "sound" like the Lee you learned about, does it. 

Either Pryor's details are wrong, or what we learned about Lee so far was bullshit. One, or the other.


This all sounds crazy, because surely, no slave owners tortured girls, right?   I mean they were religious men, especially Lee.  Why whip your slave girl?

Whip was just the start.  Lee even had other tortures -- yes he did.   

Underneath all slavery was violence -- torture for those who disobeyed, and death for those who fought back.

And religion -- Lee used religion as much as anyone -- to justify it all


Pryor did not write a tell all book -- though she could have.  She worked with, side by side apparently, the Lee family, and the Virginia Historical Society.

But Douglas Southall Freeman simply blew all other hustlers away. Wearing spectacles and praising Jesus, Freeman wrote extensively on every moment of Lee's life,  proving in every page how amazing Lee was.  

Too bad, almost none of it was true.  Freeman would not even accept that Lee owned slaves, he called them "servants"  and claimed they love Lee "most of all".

As you will see from Lee's slave ledgers and dirty letters, Freeman was a lunatic and liar.  Yes, he lied. And he knew he lied.

As Pryor showed, Lee's slaves hated him so much, they risked their lives to escape.  And they tried to escape for a very good reason.  Women tried to escape because of the rapes, and Lee took their children away, or took them away from their children.

Yes, he did.

Far from being against slavery, Lee claimed emphatically slavery was "a religious liberty"  and ordained by God. Those who were against slavery were against God.

God would end slavery -- not man -- because God started slavery, to teach blacks. 

Pain, Lee wrote, was "necessary for their instruction".   It was not up to us (mankind) to question God on that.

God will end slavery when HE wants -- perhaps in 2000 years, Lee suggested to his wife.

Meanwhile, Lee was not in any sense a kind slaver. He was cruel, even by standards of the day.

Lee tortured slaves, and torture is the right word, including slave girls.  Lee may not have held the whip (one newspaper said he did) but he did order the whipping, and screamed at the slaves before and during the torture.

Yeah -- that Lee.

Sorry -- slavery is like that.  Escaped slaves were tortured -- eyes gouged out, some burned, if they fought back and injured a white man, they could be burned to death.

Slavery would have fell apart, if slaves were not punished with extreme pain, or worse.   Slavery can  not begin, Lincoln wrote, or spread, or continue, without violence. It's born in violence, it's spread in violence, and it will die in violence, he wrote to his friend Joshua Speed.

He was right.



Douglas Freeman's father was in Lee's Army.  Why Freeman was so wacko about praising Lee in the most extreme terms possible, we don't know.  Maybe to glorify his father, maybe to sell more books, but the point is, Freeman was full of bullshit.

According to Freeman, Lee was not just chaste, but the most chaste.  Not just devout, but the most devout.

In fact, Freeman had four columns of noble human traits, in the index, and then essentially set out to prove Lee was the MOST chaste, MOST devout, MOST kind MOST this that and the other.

Even the MOST tidy.  His biography tries to show Lee as that.

We don't know if he was the most tidy, but he was NOT the most chaste or kind.  He wrote sexually explicit letters -- fo decades, even after the Civil War, to various women, not his wife.

Try to grasp  how goofy Freeman was, when you realize what Lee's papers actually show, and that Freeman would have known most of that information. 

Douglas Southall Freeman is Lee's famous biographer -- he has schools named after him, because of his Lee biography!

Lee of course, has dozens of schools, even state holidays, named after him.

He sits now -- said one Pulitzer Prize winner told us "In heaven, next to Christ his Lord".

You can't beat that. In heaven next to Christ. Seriously -- go try to beat that. I will give you a year, and you can't beat that.

Getting off horse in battle for extended silent prayer

Some biographies were actually difficult to read, seeing they had to carve out new beatitudes about Lee - he prayed with black woman when no one else would, he saved baby sparrows in battle, and my personal favorite, yes, Lee dismounted, will all his officers, during battle, as bombs blew up around them, for long silent prayers.

it got that silly.   But did not the facts support that?

Against slavery -- "violently" against slavery.   His slaves knew him best, and loved him most of all. 

He was so beloved by his "servants" they refused -- refused-- to leave when he freed them.  Kinda makes you tear up.


Experts knew about Lee's papers, kept in two trunks by the family, for over 80 years, but the family didn't let folks see them.

But what if you were told, was bullshit. Not kinda bullshit, not sorta bullshit, but car loads, truck loads, of bullshit?

That could not happen. Not in this "modern" age of scholars, right?   Scholars are the ones that told us how great he was "without faults"  said Douglas Southall Freeman.

What if "historians"  just repeated the bullshit?

Surely the two trunks of Lee's personal papers, including letters to and from bounty hunters, and his own slave ledgers, would show him as scholars did.  Chaste, kind, devout, principled.  




Elizabeth Pryor, a Lee devotee, and chosen by the Lee family, had access to his slave ledgers and personal letters, that no one had before. She wrote a book about his papers. 

Alan Nolan, a Lee "scholar," thought so himself, and said 25 years ago, we need to start over.  He adored Lee too -- just like Pryor does.  He spent most of that book, "Lee Considered" praising Lee. But he got in the caveat that we need to start over. What Freeman and others wrote down, he essentially said, was bullshit.  Not reliable.

Nolan had no clue -- no clue whatsoever-- how right he was.


Lee's letters and slave ledgers say more about the power of bullshit and Orwellian double speak, than Lee himself.

And they says a lot about Lee.  

How could "historians" get it so wrong, how was the history of a man who tortured girls, bought women from kidnappers (yes he did) and sold children, get so twisted that he was shown not just as against slavery, but "violently" against it, according to some.

How could "historians" just add layer upon layer of bullshit,  and call it history? 

Is there nothing "historians" can not get wrong?

 from things Lee wrote down, in his own letters and slave ledgers?

Yes, the Union Army saved Lee's personal property, and returned it all to the family.  

In fact, Lee's cash crop, was slave flesh, and labor.  Did you know that?  Lee didn't have a lemonade stand, their income came from slaves.  

Even that basic fact is glossed over, no one in 150 years had the balls to say so.  

When Lee left the Army, which he did several times, to "manage"  -- he was maximizing slave profit. Getting rid of those that caused trouble (see how Pryor tells us that).

Pryor says artfully, Lee only ever wanted to be a "planter".   Do you think he ever planted a single thing in his life?  His slaves did the work.  

Lee planted? Not really. Lee bought slaves, sold them, had them whipped if he wanted, sent bounty hunters after them.   

Never mind that slaves built it, and the sale of slaves made it possible -- slaves didn't get anything.

Lee family got rich.

While "scholars" drooled over those papers in his Lee's trunks, pretty much, everyone assumed those letters and papers would just verify what a great Christian he was, how he didn't own slaves, and cared only for saving souls for Jesus -- the stuff they teach about Lee.


Overall, her narrative is quite flattering, at no one time, on no page, does she say anything bluntly bad about Lee.

But she gets horrors in -- all of which, Lee caused, and participated in, like the torture of slave girls. 

She does reveal the horrors -- such as torture, rape, and screaming at slave girls as he has them tortured (torture is the right word, get over it)  she does so artfully, diplomatically, blaming others.

Common ploy. 

Again, and again, Pryor writes giving you the impression she is talking about slave owners generally.  And maybe she is.  She often does not even use Lee's name on that page, and certainly not in that paragraph.

But she is writing about Lee.   

"Truth is amazing - history is unreliable"

Pryor won't even call his slave ledgers, by that basic name.  She refers to them exactly once -- calling them "monthly account books".  

If you had Robert E Lee's slave ledgers -- apparently dozens of them, spannning several years, with names, dates prices, and disposition of slaves would you call them, only once, as "account book"  deep in side a throw away paragraph?

Do you think that's an accident? She has his slave ledgers in her hands.  She studied them for months, comparing them to letters to and from Lee.  She could therefore make sense what what Lee wrote in his slave ledgers, especially on bounty hunters, because Lee paid them, and wrote them letters.


Lee bought women from kidnappers -  yes, kidnapping blacks in the North was a good business, all profit.   Do you think the kidnappers really gave a shit if the person they grabbed, was a run away slave, or the child of one, or free?  

Hell no.  They were in it, for the money.  Plus, how the hell were they going to tell, if they did care?

And no, they didn't care. 

That's how Lee ended up with "others"  --  Pryor uses that one word, that Lee's hunters (she calls them bondsmen)  brought him.

Technically, she wrote, Lee "may have violated the law".   Oh really?

She also passes this off as a paperwork issue - Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork" -- as if there was actually paperwork at all, time consuming or otherwise, and Lee was the victim of some bad  bureaucracy. 

Yes, Pryor would go to any lengths, to put Lee's vile and violent activities, into Orwellian double speech.

She didn't have to -- she could have been plain, direct.  "Lee had the following girls captured in the North, that were not his escaped slaves at all"   But that's not how Pryor rolls, ya see.

Do you think Lee wrote "I paid 400 dollars for other"? Pryor saw something in Lee's slave ledgers about this.  We don't know what.  Yes, she should have, and could have, showed up what she found.

But she cleaned it up, by bullshit double talk,   She isn't the first person to do that, actually its quite common in "history" books, to be more about covering up harsh truth, than revealing it.

She and the Lee family should release the slave ledgers and dirty letters,  the whole shebang. 



 Lee did not free his wife's slaves -- in fact, he repeatedly fought --  yes fought -- court orders to free them.   Plus he owned his own.

 Only later do we learn some were white looking.  Pryor does that throughout the book -- a little information here, a few words later. None of it, by itself, shocking, because always her narrative is as flattering, or at least forgiving, as possible.  

And she says almost nothing bluntly. Not even the title of the book  

Pryor calls her book "Portrait of Robert E Lee through his personal letters".

Well bullshit -- she had his slave ledgers there, much more revealing.  Why not say that?

And she knows  "portrait" is a word meaning flattering picture, and you can bet she picked it carefully, like many other words.


Lee's Cash Crop 

No "historian" has ever dared tell you what Lee's cash crop was.

Do you know? Hell no, no one told you

But they did tell you the name of his pet chicken.

That really is how fucking goody the "scholarship" on Lee is.  And no, that's  not hyperbole.  No one has ever mentioned, that I know anyway, what Lee's cash crop was. 

It was human flesh.   That's what he actually bought and sold.

Human. Flesh. 


That whole bullshit about Lee freeing his wife's slaves -- well he did, after, after after  three court orders to do so, and after, after after,  most of his slave escaped or he sold or rented out.

In other words, by the time Lee "freed" anyone, they were worthless, and he had sold rented out, or cashed in all he could.

But even that is not as surprising as the WHITE LOOKING SLAVE GIRLS.

Who ever dreamed Lee owned white looking slave girls -- and some escaped?    Pryor does not tell us what he did with the white looking girls, though clearly she could have.   SHe  had in her papers his slave ledgers.   Apparently ALL of them.

SHe could tell us, for example, how much Lee paid for certain captures, how much he paid to certain bounty hunters.   She knew the names and dates and skin tone of slaves.

She knew, too, how many female slaves Lee had at a certain time, how many male, and how many over and unders a certain age.
Do you think she got this information from a duck? No, she got it from his slave ledgers.  She tells us only what she wants -- and that would  not include, what he did with the white looking slave girls.

We do know an awful truth about white and light looking slave girls -- they sold well at auction.  They were sold to whore houses -- yes whore houses, and the poor girls were probably screwed to death, or abused is sex trade.  Yes, there was a sex trade for slaves. 

She never says what Lee did with these specific girls. Why not?

Really, why not.  She could have said any of the sentences in 1000 different ways.  She said them, apparently, in a way that gave the most excuses, the most deference to Lee, and her goal was clearly not to be candid, but to be clever.

She was damn clever. 


Orwellian double speak. 

Orwellian bullshit was absolutely necessary to get slavery going -- and to keep it.  That's not a real surprise, all of human cruelty and oppression, seems tied directly to how much Orwellian bullshit the slave owner, or killer, or whatever, can come up with.


Seriously, without double speak bullshit, so much of the evil men do, would not be possible. Humans just don't torture others, sell children, enslave others, without some kind of fucking bullshit excuse.

Lee wrote God "knew and intended" slaves get "painful discipline"

That would be a more appropriate title for her book, if Pryor was going to be candid. That's the kind of thing she actually found, and had to deal with. 

Did you know that?   Pain, wrote Lee, to his stupid religious wife "is necessary for their instuction".

That's right -- pain is necessary for their instruction.

And Lee seemed gleeful -- if reports in newspapers are true -- that  he was gleeful little Bobby Lee, while watching girls get whipped and salt poured in their wounds.

In fact, Lee taunted the girl before her torture.

That's right, Mr. Do No Wrong,  taunted girls before torture, then screamed at them during torture.

See yet why Pryor can't find the language to say such things?

See why she had to use Orwellian double speak.

Pryor uses it too. You have to, to do, or explain away, slavery. 

Of course, we could not teach the vile t history of slavery to our kids -- the rapes, selling children, selling your OWN children into slavery, and that is what happened. 

It's not like a big conspiracy to cover up the truth -- this is human nature.

Southerners HAD to deal with Civil War, after it was over.

How would the children, and grandchildren, of Southern leaders deal with the Civil War?

Would Lee tell his grandkids about the slave girls he bought?

Would he tell what he did in the slave barn, which girl was his favorite?

Would he brag about the prices he paid for kidnapped girls?


So when Southern writers started building the narrative, slavery was entirely discredited.  No one gave that idiot bullshit "God ordained slavery"  crap anymore.

Slavery brought out the worst -- because it was awesome power.  But the children and the grandchildren would not  admit, and did not probably know, the shit their parents and grandparents did.

Would you tell folks about it?  Hell no.

So the South was eager for their leaders to be wonderful men - idiotically they claimed Southern leaders werent even for slavery,  but the hell they werent.  Torturing slave girls, buying girls, is not the kind of activity men do, when they are against slavery.

 Would your grand child or child write a biography of you, and spill all you did, even if they knew?  Hell no.


If you don't "get it" that power corrupts, you  have to think this is crazy to think Lee did horrible thing.  But actually, all slave owners did terrible things, because slavery is terrible.

No doubt some were kinder, some may have been extremely kind -- but Lee was not one of those.

Lee was cruel -- and more cruel, not less, that others, if his own papers are correct.

Power corrupts.  If Lee -- or any slave owner --wanted to take some well developed girl in the barn and have your way, there was absolutely nothing to stop you.

What would stop Lee, or any slave owner?  Their religious nature?  The religion was bullshit cover, like a jacket they put in, something to fool their wives. Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to various women for years, but to his wife, it was God this, and God that.

Besides where do you think all these mulatto and white looking slaves came from? Who fathered them? Casper the ghost?

Seriously, who do you think fathered those mulatto and light skinned slaves? Give me a name,.

And guess who had, really, the highest number of white looking or mulatto slaves in US?   Lee. That's right. Pryor tells us that, but cleverly.  At least she got that information in, and this is typical of everything she "reveals".

 COMMON.  You heard that right. Rape. Was. Common.

And common at Arlington. Pryor tells us that, cleverly, by quoting s slave speaking in Ebonics. 

EBONICS?  Seriously.   She didn't quote slaves  using ebonics in any other matter. Suddenly, about rape, she jumps into ebonics.  Uh huh.  " Lord Child dats wuz common"    Lord, child, slave rape was common". 

But she did get it in. Rape. Was. Common.  Those white and light slaves didn't fall into a barrel of flour. Try to grasp that.

Slave masters were no good pricks, with awesome power.   And they obviously used that power in the slave barn.  

Did that come to Pryor in a dream?  Did she get it from a duck?  No -- she got it from Lee's papers.  


Slave owners did a lot of vile things -- no, it was not like Gone With The Wind.

OF COURSE they are not going to show women tortured, whipped, and their children sold.

But do you know what happened at Arlington?  Women were tortured, whipped, and their children sold. 

Guess what -- that's how slavery was.

Slavery was about fear, torture -- and yes men did rape slaves, sell women into slavery.  No, it was nothing like Gone with the Wind. 

Lee was born in a time that religion was used to justify torture -- his father had a slave girl hung, for knocking down a white man.   Was he raping her?  Was he whipping her?  Was he whipping her child?

No one cared why Lee had the girl hung-- no one even bothered to record a reason, other than she knocked down a white man. Was he raping her? Was he selling her child? Was he whipping her child, her mother, her brother?

No one cared -- that's the point. She knocked down a white man, and she hung to death for it. 

That is what slavery was like. You didn't have to torture every slave, or hang every slave, to get your message across. You watch people you know hung or tortured, (and slaves were force to watch, according to some reports)  and you would get the message too.

Hilariously -- if it were not so vile -- slave apologist wrote books about how good slaves had it.  They were only whipped for disobedience or laziness, and one author said the slave women were allowed to keep most of their children.  That's his DEFENSE.

But the biggest defense of course, was scripture -- the most amazing speeches in US history are the long, brilliant, and utterly vile speeches not just defending slavery, but promoting it as Godly and not just allowable, but Gods wish for the black race, was to punish them for biblical sins.

Did you know that, or not?  Hell no.

We aren't told how vile and violent slavery was -- nor are we told how religion was always -- always -- used to justify it.

The South became, and still is today, the bible belt -- that belt was created during slave days, in order to justify slavery. Yes, it was.

As you will see, Lee wrote dirty letters -- sexually explicit letters -- to various women, for decades.    Sure, he could write religious letters to his wife -- and did.    Slavery was duplicity -- cruelty, rape, torture, covered up by religious perfume.  

We can't teach that, of course, or kids might suspect religion is bullshit. 

That was the nature of life then, and Lee was part of it.   Lee used religion,  like all slave owners did, to fool their wives, to make excuses.  

Lee with and without Orwellian double speak.  

Interestingly, Orwellian double speak didn't start with George Orwell.   Slave owners needed it -- Jefferson Davis may be the champion Orwellian of all time, when he defined liberty as the right to own slaves.

But Pryor uses Orwellian double speak all through her pages.  While she does use the word "horror" for the white looking slaves, she doesn't get it that torture and rape of a dark skinned girl was as vile as torture and rape of a mulatto girl, or even a white looking girl.

Seriously, it only became a "horror" -- she only used that word horror -- when it involved the white looking slaves Lee owned.

"Increasingly, whites were enslaving other whites"  she wrote.   She meant Lee -- she was refering to Lee, though she made it as vague and unspecific as possible. It was LEE who owned the most light skinned slaves, and Lee who had white looking slave girls try to escape. 

Lee owned white looking girls. She could have written that simple sentence, but Pryor never writes simple sentences about a horror, a rape, a torture, a kidnapping. 

Still no one else was brave or honest enough, to write as much as she did.   Yes, she and the Lee family should show the slave ledgers.  150 years of bullshit is enough.



Worthy of all praise -- had  no faults.  At all.  This is from a Pulitzer prize winning author, who you will see, lied his ass off, in every page.

Yet -- seriously -- they named prizes and schools after this author, BECAUSE he so flattered Lee.  That's right, just praising Lee out the ass, got you prizes   We kid you not. 


Those who knew Lee best, this author said - were his slaves. And they loved him most. That proved how amazing Lee was.

 Go on, read it.   This was prize winning "historian".   They loved Lee most. Learn below the fraud the lying bastard used to "prove" this bullshit.

So others were free to just make up such total bullshit about Lee  -- you name it, they made it up.  Almost none of it appeared until long after Lee died.   

Like saving souls for Christ -- that's all he cared about.  Yeah, okay.  He rarely went to church,  and he had slaves tortured, but to hear Lee biographers tell it, he was the  most Godly man that ever walked. Really, the most Godly man that ever walked. 

Seriously, you can not possibly make up more crazy bullshit, than was already made up about Lee. You.  Can't. Do.  It. Not even if you tried, on purpose. It was already dreamed up, and already passed off as real history. 

Really, his slaves loved him MOST.   He wrote that. 


Documents in Lee's own papers, show the slaves actually said, he was the meanest man they ever saw.

So the myth -- repeated by "historians" was that Lee had no slaves, but his slaves loved him most of all.

But the actual documents in Lee's papers, show they said he was the meanest man they ever saw.


Pryor could have named her book "Meanest Man We Ever Saw"

She could have named  her book "Lee's light skinned slave girls, and the prices he paid for them"

She could have named her book "Lee's bounty hunters, which ones he paid the most".

But she didn't.   She named in Reading the Man, A Portrait of Lee Through His Personal Papers.

Get the picture?  See what lying pieces of shit these "historians" were?


School children in Virginia are taught that Lee didn't own slaves, and they are told the name of his pet chicken.

The pet chicken's name was Pearl.   But he sure as hell did own slaves, he even created more. 



Is this news to you?


Its well established that, during the war, Lee  had his soldiers find free blacks in the North, to be sold as slaves.

That's right, Lee had his soldier capture blacks in the North -- sold as slaves.

But he did the same thing -- through bounty hunters -- before the Civil War. He had his hunters bring back girls (yes girls) that were not slaves until his bounty hunters brought them to Lee, and he turned them into slaves.

You heard right Lee turned girls into slaves. Yes, he did.  Pryor is very very very careful how she relates that one -- see below. 

Since you only know what you are told -- and this is the kind of Orwellian bullshit even in school books, no wonder people don't  know real history.


One of my personal favorites, from an author named Cooke.   Hilariously, there is a John Esten Cooke prize, really, for writers who today flatter Lee.  

Cooke's books were big sellers -- years after Lee died.


In fact, most of the more crazy bullshit books, were written 20-30  years after Lee died, not at the time. Remember that.

Southern readers were eager to buy books that glorified Confederate leaders.

Cooke had a lot of competition -- you had to flatter Lee more, or Davis more,   and they would make up the biggest bullshit they could dream up.  It sold well.

In this competition to praise Lee, and other Southern leaders,  along came Douglas Southall Freeman, whose father knew Lee, and Douglas grew up with a huge crush on Lee.  To show Lee as a child molester who sold and bought children, wouldn't exactly honor his dad.  Freeman devoted much of his life to lying about Lee.

Really, he did. 

Sadly -- funny too -- this kind of bullshit, from these books written later, are what make up most of the bullshit now accepted as truth. Of course it's not true -- and the original documents, reports, letters, and slave ledgers, show a vastly different Lee.

Cooke claimed Lee and all his officers, would dismount during battle, for long silent prayer, as bombs blew up around him.

Cooke's book is for sale RIGHT NOW, and his award is given yearly even now.   This is the kind of stupid bullshit people believe, today!


What do you do with white looking slaves?

Pyror starts out, as most Lee biographies do, comparing him to someone wonderful -- in this case, Richard the Lionhearted.

Which is a demotion, seriously, from other biographers, who said without a hit of sarcasim, now sits at the "right  hand of Christ, his Lord".

Hard to beat that --he is in Heaven, and at the right hand of Christ, apparently pushing the Apostles out of the way, not to mention his Mother Mary.

It is literally impossible to out flatter, out glorify, out santify Lee, unless you make him Christ. GO on -- try it.  

The mother would not be dark black.   The mother would have been mulatto, as over half Lee's slaves were mulatto!  Pryor does admit that, again carefully.

And slave rape was common.   If you think white men didn't take slave women -- who could not resist, or they would be beaten (Lee's father had a slave girl hung for resisting) you don't know human nature. Give a man absolute power, and biblical persmission  (slavery permitted in the bible, as was beating your slave to death)   what the hell you think is gonna happen?

If you can buy women, whip them, sell their babies, seriously what the fuck do you think is going to stop them from raping the women?   

Lee had a large number of light skinned slaves. Do you think their father was Casper?  Do you think it was immaculate conception?

Lee didn't free the white looking slave girls --apparently  he sold them.  We say apparently because Pryor mentions that at one point, only young and old and male slaves remained.   

Where the hell did women go? Florida on vacation? Did they cash in their air miles for Hawaii?   

Pryor had to have information to tell us -- why not show us?   Seems she puts all her information in with  care

She does give us just enough to know that Lee had ongoing and serious problems with girls that escaped -- she could have named a chapter "Lee's escaped slave girls"  and given their names, given the prices paid for each capture, etc.

There are a thousand ways Pryor could have told us about the white looking slave girls that escaped.  Yet you can read her entire book, she writes it so carefully, and not notice any slaves escaped, or that he had any tortured for it (torture is the right word)  or that Lee had the most white looking slaves  in US history.

But he did.  Read her book closely.

Pryor saves the word "horror"  for the white looking slaves.  As time went on, Pryor wrote, whites were enslaving other whites.



Bet you didn't know that -- in your entire life, no one told you whites were enslaving other whites, because white looking babies were born from rapes.

It takes several generations of rape -- yes rape - to produce a child as light skinned as some Lee owned.  But girls could be raped at any age, if you are going to rape slaves, does it really matter to the rapist if the girl is 16 or 13?

No, it did not matter to the rapist.  

Keep in mind, as Pryor found, and reluctantly admitted, slave rape was COMMON.   Not unusual.  


Pryor could likely tell us which girls were light -- she had to know, because Lee referred to specific girls as white looking, in his own papers.   She  held those papers.

Why not share with us, what she had in her hands?  SHe tells us, cryptically, a few amazing things.  Why not let us see what she had, that made her aware?

She didn't get this information from a  duck.  She got it from Lee.  So let us see what he wrote, already.  150 years of bullshit is enough.

We must depend on Pryor's words --  but read them closely.  Lee's own handwritten slave ledgers and personal letters -- he wrote them.   Not some historian.  Not some Northern press. 

Lee wrote them.   Remember that. 

While Pryor is exquisitely careful -- to the point of absurdity -- how she tells us of Lee's horrors, she does tell us.

We wish, of course, she would just show the slave ledgers, dirty letters, bounty payments, instructions to hunters, payments for kidnappings, etc. 

She had such Lee records in her hands -- not copies, but the letters and ledgers Lee himself wrote, and other letters written to him.   


But the Virginia Historical Society and the Lee family is not about to let you see them.   It took 150 years for them to let ONE person study them.



Here is one example -- Lee had slaves tortured, and he screamed at slave girls as he had them whipped.  Yes, he did.

We were told he didn't even own slaves.

Remember LEE WROTE this stuff down.   Pryor is doing her best to make it vague, minimize it, and gloss over it, and she should release the actual papers, but read her words closely.

The more vile the horror Lee caused, the more slick Pryor is about telling us.   Watch  how carefully Pryor "tells" the really vile stuff, below.

Pryor claims Lee-- by law -- had to whip the girls. Oh really? Show us that law. She won't.

And was there a law that said Lee had to pay 600% higher bounties for certain girls, or send hunters into the North for months on end?

Lee was apparently very very keen on capture of certain girls.  He paid much higher bounties for capture of girls -- why?

Was there a law that said he had to pay much higher prices for girls?  Of course not, and Pryor knows that.


Remember that, if you read her book, and you should read it.  She had to say something.  The hard part of Pryor, no doubt, was HOW to tell us these things, which words will she use.  

If Pryor had stated them plainly, she probably would have been escorted off the premises and banned from returning.

She worked personally with Lee family, and personally with Virginia Historical Society. Both groups are essentially religions praising Bobby Lee.   The amazing thing isn't that she wrote carefully, but that she got in the horrors, at all.  

 So Pryor  -- who adores Lee anyway -- came up with excuses, rationalizations, and minimized the horrors as best she could.

She could not just tell you "Lee had the following girls whipped, and here is what his ledgers say about them".


Apparently the Lee myth began in the Civil War itself, arguably in Richmond, where newspaper editor Edward Pollard  tended to glorify everything Lee did, mostly because he hated Jeff Davis.


But the South seemed to need a hero after the Civil War, especially after Lee's death.  

Leading up to the Civil War, Southern leaders and authors were quite clear and proud -- God ordained slavery, even the torture of slaves.  Blacks were not really human beings -- but property.  

Confederate leaders BRAGGED they killed to spread slavery, they BRAGGED about their war ultimatums to spread slavery.   They BRAGGED the Confederacy was based on "the great truth" that blacks were not even human beings, but "so inferior" they were property.

What Southern leaders bragged of in 1850's -- did not sound rational in 1880.

So, being human beings, Southern "historians" and authors found much better sales by creating myths.  It was not a big conspiracy, it was human nature.  Books that found someone to praise -- Lee was the main one -- sold well.  

Authors like John Cooke still sell today, saying the goofiest crap about Lee -- such that he and all his officers got off their horses, as bombs blew up around them, in silent prayer.   That kind of bullshit sold well, and that book is still sold to this day.

Authors competed to outdo each other in the bullshit.  Believe it or not, much of what these hustlers wrote at the time -- almost all of it make up -- is cited by "scholars" today who act as if it were true. It was never true.   


Who whipped who, like who killed who, is real history.  All else tends to  bullshit excuses or rationalizations by the "historian". 

Yes of COURSE there is going to be bullshit slanting of things in history books, especially biographies. It has always been thus.

And that's fine  -- if you are honest about the basics.


2+2=5; therefore I am the pope.

Bertrand Russell said "2+2=5, therefore I am the pope.

If you can make up your own facts, you can arrive at any bullshit conclusion that you want.   That's very common in history, but Lee "scholars" have made an art form of this bullshit technique.

But in Lee's case, no one even spoke out about the basics -- who he tortured, who he sold, who he paid for. .

Pryor tells us -- very very carefully, burying those facts in as careful prose as she can.   But she did get the information into her book -- no one else did such a thing. No one.

The point is, tortures weren't Lee's fault -- according to Pryor.  She wouldn't even call them tortures.   She was as careful as possible. She had the information, she seemed to want to get it in somehow.  

  Pryor says the slaves "tested" Lee.   Poor Bobby, is her apparent attitude.  BUT SHE HAD TO SAY SOMETHING SO SHE DID.

But when you read closer, you find the "test" those cruel slave girls inflicted on Lee, was this: they tried to escape. She had to say something -- so she said they tested Lee.  But she made it very vague what the test was -- it was trying to escape. You  have to read her carefully, even flipping back and forth, between pages, to figure it out.

She could have said " Lee had the following girls whipped for trying to escape".  Not her style.  Too clear.


This is not so much about Lee -- as about the  bullshit in our history books.  We need to start over about Lee -- and all of Southern leaders.  150 years of BS is enough.


Newspapers BEFORE the Civil War reported on the whippings at Arlington. Why?

Not because whipping was rare -- it was common for escaped slaves. It made the paper, because the regular overseer refused to whip the girl.  That was news.  An overseer (a black man, usually a slave) just told Lee -- NO.

Think of that. The overseer, who usually whips the slaves, and did whip other slaves that day, said no,  he would not whip the girl. BECAUSE he was too young. That's what the newspapers reported -- that's why it made the papers.

Let that sink in.  Lee had girls whipped, that the overseer, a cruel man whose job was whip -- refused this time. 

Lee kind to his servants?  How much more bullshit can you kind? Servants? Kind?

That's what three separate newspapers reported at the time, about this incident.  Bet you never heard that.   

Lee found someone else to whip the girl, and screamed at her during her torture. THATS why it made the papers. He yelled all through her torture "Hit her harder, hit her harder" -- or in the vernacular of slave masters and whips  "Lay it on, Lay it on".

Lee was excited. He had paid 342 dollars for her capture, and he wanted his money's worth, apparently.

Why pay so much higher prices for 14 year old girls?  Did he like their opinion on the structure of bridges?   Their knowledge of water pressure and flood water dynamics?

There was SOME reason Lee paid much higher prices for young girls.  You will figure it out -- take your time.  

Pryor would not show his slave ledgers. Nor much of anything else. Sure, she should have. Hopefully the Lee family won't destroy them now.

Pryor  held the actual slave ledgers in her hands, and 10,000 or  so letters to, or from Lee, many about his slaves. She knows which day Lee bought which slave, which bounty hunter he sent after which slave girl, and even what he advised his bounty hunters to do.


Pryor does what no one  has dared to, in 150 year -- she tells who Lee tortured, why, and how much he paid.  Yes, she is very careful HOW she tells these horrors. 

 She tells us about his sexually explicit that he wrote for decades,  to various women, and that he bragged about sex tricks and his son's sexual abilities. 

Who does that even now?  Do you ever write sexually explicit letters to women you didn't have some sexual interaction with?  Do you brag about your son's sexual abilities?   Lee did. And this was in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s. 

This wasn't a one or even ten time habit for Lee -- he wrote such letters for decades. 

No one -- literally no one -- even guessed that Lee's personal letters and ledgers would hold such information.  

It's probably that the Lee family didn't know fully what the letter ledgers and documents would show.  Pryor got them all out, studied them, and correlated the letters to the slave ledgers.  



Tellingly, Lee devotees use a few words from his letter to his wife, to "prove" he was against slavery.

Actually,  actions matter more than words -- but even so,  read the entire letter. 

Lee's own letter,  not only defends slavery, it is one of the most velvety smooth defenses of torture ever written.  God knew and intended slaves feel painful discipline.  Pain -- specifically pain -- is necessary for their instruction.

Slaves "must endure painful discipline" because God intended it to be thus.  A common excuse for slavery, bet you never heard this, is that blacks were being punished for biblical sins.  In fact the VP of the Confederacy boasted about that, whites were doing Gods will to punish blacks!


Plus, what "scholars" don't tell you, all of the defense of slavery comes from someone's else's writings, Lee copied it almost word for word, thought for thought,  from a book with letter in it, written by Daniel Webster.  Lee would know which books his wife had. 

Yet books today claim Lee really cared about bringing "souls to Christ" and freed his slaves, didn't believe in slavery -- bullshit.,

 No one said anything like that (that Lee was against slavery, freed his slaves, etc) at the time, during his life.  Books written about Lee sometimes did not even mention slavery, not one word.  

Pryor had in her hands, Lee's sexually explicit letters, to various women, that he wrote over a period of decades.  She had in her hands, Lee's slave ledgers.  She had his own handwritten prices for girls, his own instructions to slave hunters, and his own confirmation of tortures.  (Yes, torture is the right word).

No, she is not blunt, never blunt. Quite the opposite.  

Pryor refuses to even use the word "slave ledger".  She used the term "monthly account books".   The were slave ledgers -- account books so specific, Pryor could tell prices, dates, and who was paid how much for which slave.  Pryor can compare Lee's slave ledgers to his personal letters, and letters women wrote to him about the slaves. 

Pryor is a wordsmith, diplomat, and artist.  When she says her book is a "Portrait" of Lee -- she knows portrait is a deliberately flattering rendering.  And her book does just that.

You can skim through her book, and hardly notice the acne and pockmarks on Lee's skin.


Pryor wraps up the horrors gently - her most common ploy, she reveals what she calls "horrors" but  does not use Lee's name in that page or even in the surrounding pages. 

You can easily assume she is referring to other slave owners, because that is her clever misdirection.   No, read it closely. She is using LEE's slave ledgers, letters to and from Lee. 

 When she discusses the horrors (to Pryor, white looking slave girls were the horror) she is talking specifically about Lee's white looking slave girls. 

But you can easily miss that, glossed over as it is, in careful prose. Lee is the guy who owned the most light skinned slaves -- over 50% of his slaves were mulatto, according to 1860 census.

Over 50% Pryor says. She won't say how light skinned, or how many, just over 50%.   But did anyone else -- ever -- even hint as such a thing?

Then on another page, Pryor mentions the word "white".   White looking slaves, slaves that could pass for white. If you can pass for white, you are white. Race is not a DNA characteristic, it is a skin tone.  Try to grasp that.

White looking slaves were as much Negro as Casper the ghost. But Lee owned them, and paid for them, and sold them, and had them chased by bounty hunters.  He did not go "Oh, this one looks white, let her go".

In fact, white looking slave women sold well at auction -- did you know that?  Or not?  No, you had no clue. Guess who knew  that?

Robert E Lee knew.


 Lee was called "King of Spades" early in the Civil War, in Southern newspapers, in jocular reference of the 5,000 or more slaves Lee used in building the massive defenses around Richmond. Pryor does not mention this in her book, but it's an example of what    Southern "historians" have labored to pretend it was a term of endearment from his soldiers. 

Most people assume Lee was in charge of an army immediately. No -- Lee was an engineer, not a fighting soldier. Until John Brown capture -- Lee was not in battle, and even with John Brown, Lee only got their late, after Brown was surrounded.  Lee was in his civilian clothes. 

But your history teacher repeats the bullshit about that too, as if Lee captured Brown. Lee was already surrounded. Lee was in civilian clothes, he had no part in the "capture".  

Nor did Davis use Lee in combat at first -- he used Lee to build the massive earth works that played such a huge role in prolonging the war.   The earth works were massive, row after row of deeply dug ditches, 70 miles long, that were impossible to dislodge by cannon of the day. 

Local papers called Lee "King of Spades" because blacks were used to dig the earth works, and Lee was in charge.   

But Lee "historians" like Freeman sure aren't going to tell you that. Freeman came up with the bullshit excuse about King of Spades. He could  not, of course, mention Lee's massive use of slave labor -- Freeman typically called blacks Lee's "people" or servants.  Rarely would Douglass write slave and Lee in the same sentence, or paragraph, or page.

 While Pryor never says this -- given Lee had girls whipped during peace time, imagine what Lee did in wartime, to male slaves, when Lee's own life would depend on how fast and how well, the slaves dug the defenses.


Only after Pryor established the misleading tone, does he reveal the rapes were common,  and she does that, very carefully, quoting a black man speaking in ebonics.  

"Lord chil' dats wuz common".

Do you think Pryor accidently revealed the rapes at Arlington that way?  Think Pryor accidently first posited the rapes as dalliances, and then later, in double speak, got in the "horrors"?  

Then only later mentioned in ebonics, that rapes were common.

Seriously, do you think she laid out things in that progression, in that offhanded (apparently offhanded) way, by accident?  She has information that Lee owned white looking girls, paid higher bounties for light skinned girls, had them chased for months.  She had information Lee bought women kidnapped (that's the right word) from the North and turned them into slaves.

DO you think her very careful insertion of these facts was accidentally tame, accidentally vague, accidently clever?  

Pryor's hardest task seems not to be the information itself, but presenting it in a way that doesn't get the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society to ban her from all slave states forever. 


So common were rapes, in fact, that black men did not sleep in the same building as black women, because white men would come and night, like they owned a hareem, and rape whatever women then wanted.  This happened AT ARLINGTON.

The men --no doubt from painful deadly experience - knew they would fight whoever came to rape the women.  What would you do if your wife or daughter was raped?

Do we teach such things in school? Hell no. 

Yes, it would be vile to teach of the rape and sale of slaves to school children.  White men were raping slave girls, then selling the children from those rapes, into slavery.

Yes, they were. And they got wealthy doing it. 

If we don't dare teach the ugly truth, fine. But dont turn facts on their head and teach that men like that were noble, brave, chaste, kind, anti slavery.  Its as vile as Lee was.


 In fact, it seems authors writing from 1890-1920, authors seem to  compete to insert the most preposterous claims -- Lee dismounting during battles, bombs exploding around him, is my favorite -- which idiotically are used now to "prove" how wonderful Lee was.

That's right.   The authors who wrote utter nonsense -- like the guy who claimed Lee prayed with all his officers, as bombs blew up around them -- are actually cited as proof of Lee's wonder.

Let me repeat that -- the "sources" for many of Lee's fantastic "facts" are the hustlers who wrote bullshit books, 15-30 years after he died. 

No one reported that Lee and all his officers were ever near exploding bombs, much less that Lee dismounted, as they all did, according to this writer, for long silent prayers.    But years later, some fool makes up crap like that, and it's repeated over and over.