Saturday, March 30, 2013

Why Lee's slave ledgers may (eventually) change everything we claim about "Confederate honor".

under construction......


One of Lee's light skinned slave girls.

Lee owned over 100 mulatto slaves, far more than average.



If Ms Pryor could say just one thing to Lee, it might be this:

"Please, General Lee, if you are going to whip slave girls, pay bounties for women and children caught in the North, and send dirty letters, please please don't write it down.."

But Lee did -- he wrote it down.  And Pryor was allowed to study the ledgers, the dirty letters, the information about buying slave girls from bounty hunters.

How she reveals that information is almost as interesting as the information itself.

THe Lee family with Elizabeth Pryor and the two trunks of Lee's papers.   Including his slave ledgers.  Pryor, in blue dress, with Lee family  members, and two trunks of Lee's personal papers, including his slave ledgers.


Historians have long known -- since 1860 -- that  three newspapers -- before the Civil War reported on Lee's torture (torture is the right word)  of slave girls.   Whipping slave girls did not even make the papers -- but Lee had a slave girl whipped that was so young, his regular overseer refused to whip her.  

You heard right -- the reason this made the papers, Lee's overseer refused to whip her, so he hired a bounty hunter, in the audience watching the torture, to whip her.

That does NOT mean those newspapers were necessarily accurate.,

But Pryor found -- to her astonishment no doubt -- Lee himself verified many of the facts from those newspapers on those dates.   While Pryor could have, and should have, told us clearly, or show us clearly, what Lee wrote to confirm,  give her credit, confirm she did.   

This is NOT in dispute --historians have known about the newspaper reports for 150 years. They just never told YOU about them. Lee's own slave ledgers are of monumental importance, just for this one confirmation, but there is much, much more in his slave ledgers. 

But Elizabeth Pryor -- through Lee's own slave ledgers and personal papers -- confirmed those newspaper reports.  

That's right, one of the many things in Lee's own handwritten papers, is confirmation from his own payments, to men on those dates,  and to various jails mentioned in the reports.  

Pryor  would have opened with that -- she should have.  But her clear objective here was NOT to trash Lee, but to defend him, as much as she could.   

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

Turns out, "historians" hid a lot more than his big bald head.


The family had these papers for 150 years, and only recently let one person study them, Elizabeth Pryor. Pryor wrote a flattering book-- "Reading The Man:  A Portrait of Robert E Lee Though His Personal Papers"


Scholars knew about the two trunks of papers for 80 years, and just assumed they would prove, once again, what a kind man, a man against slavery, a man of honor, he was.

Uh - not so much. 

And Lee did pretty much like his father did, re slaves.  Pryor did the same thing other Lee biographers did -- praise his family first.   She "forgot" to mention Lee's father had a slave girl hung.   That's right, Lee grew up that way.  Lee's father  had a slave girl hung - -- for knocking down a white man.

It was so unimportant at the time, no one, literally NO ONE, even bothered to record why she knocked down a white man.  She did, and she was hung for it. And Lee's father ordered the execution.

Maybe she knocked that white man down because he caught her escaping -- or stealing. Maybe he was raping her, her mother, her child.

As you will see, anyone black who fought back against rape was punished.   So that could be what happened.  We  have no idea.   But she died, she was young, and Lee's father watched her hang.   He ordered she be hung.


Make no mistake -- Pryor adores Lee.

NO, she wont let us SEE the slave ledgers, in fact, she calls them "monthly account books"  rather than the candid, and true, "slave ledgers'.

Even though she mentions  she also gives him an excuse.   The girls "tested Lee".  Poor Bobby!!  They tested him!   So he had them tortured -- and torture is the right word, if you don't like it, tuff.  Enough bullshit about what slave owners did to slave girls, enough bullshit, enough Orwellian double speak. 

Pryor, however, uses Orwellian double speak on every page-- but give her credit --she gets facts in, Orwellian double speak, excuses, or no. 


Lee whipped those girls -- or had them whipped -  Pryor tells us, because of his "poor cross cultural communication skills".   Really.

Just a failure to communicate!  Pryor may be too young to have seen the famous movie Cool Hand Luke, where the torturing warden, who seemed to love whipping men, claimed "What we have here, is a failure to communicate".

Pryor has a second line of defense for his torture --she claims  Lee had to whip the girls -- because it was a law that escaped slaves be whipped. Nonsense.

  The laws limited the number of whippings, Lee broke no laws if he failed to torture some girls.  And as you will see, Lee broke laws about slave girls regularly -- he bought girls his bounty hunters found in the North. Wait till you see how cleverly Pryor tells us about those purchases.

And remember --all these horrors Pryors finds, she gets from Lee's own papers.  They didn't drop out of the sky. Remember too, Pryor is doing her utmost to gloss over, or minimize, Lee's culpability and blame. 


If the "Lee Myth" were true --that he was against slavery -- he could just let them escape.   Lee actually spent a lot of time, money, and energy to have those slave girls captured.  HE gave much higher bounties for the girls, than the male sales, when they escaped.

 Why send bounty hunters all over three states, pay them handsomely,  direct them personally, as he did, if he was against slavery? Then have the slaves whipped, as he screamed at them, if they were caught?



Yes, Lee owned and managed over 200 slaves, and according to the 1860 census, according to Pryor, over half of his slaves were mulatto, a preposterously high percentage. 

Some, Pryor tells us "looked white".

 Here is a clue, looking white means white.   And Pryor was deeply offended, it seems, when she found out Lee produced WHITE looking slaves, and paid bounty for white looking women.  She didnt seem offended whatsoever about torture, bounty, and taking children from dark skinned women.

Pryor writes  "Whites were increasingly enslaving other whites".

Were did these light skinned slaves come from? The sky?


Pryor uses every trick in the book -- when telling us about "White looking" slaves, she does not even mention the name Lee on that page.

SHe does not say, for example "Lee wrote to his daughter about the white looking slave girl -- and here is what he wrote".

Indeed, on that page, she seems to give the impression this is about slave owners generally.  She does that impression trick by simply not putting the name Lee in the sentences.  So nothing on that page jumps out at you.  

But read her passages closely -- she is talking about LEE's slaves, and his white looking slave girls. The letters she mentions are from women at Arlington.  These white looking slave girls are not girls from down the road -- they are white looking girls AT ARLINGTON that are SLAVES.

Pryor could -- and should -- tell us the names of the white looking slave girls -- because she would know that.  She chose not to.

She could -- and should -- tell us the names and content of the letters to or from Lee, about those girls.  What did they say?  Who were they about?  

 Did one of Lee's daughters complain to her father?  Did his wife complain about the rapes?  Did someone write to Lee about the rapes? We know rapes were common at Arlingtong -- because Pryor tells us that!  But she tells is in the most clever way, not to startle. 

What are the details?

We don't know. Pryor isn't telling, at least in the text.  

But SOMEONE at Arlington wrote to Lee and mentioned it, or he wrote and mentioned it.   Pryor got that information about white looking slave girls from somewhere --  remember, Pryor is trying so hard to gloss over and minimize the horrors.  

It's reasonable to assume Pryor would put in her book -- never mind how clever and Orwellian her language -- that which was abundantly clear in the papers.    She is trying to absolve Lee of real blame, and put the horrors in the most careful language she can muster.

So Pryor isn't making it up -- she is trying her best to clean it up before she tells anyone.

Do not expect any candid sentence on the tortures, rapes, and young girls.  There is not a candid sentence in the book.   But how could she?

How could Pryor work literally with the Lee family, under the eye of Virginia "Historical" Society, be candid about their hero?

Pryor gets the information in - but not candidly.  She was so good at making things vague, that you can read her book and hardly notice the tortures, rapes, and bounty hunters were regular things at Arlington, once Lee got control.  

The Lee family had these papers for 150 years, and only recently let one person study them, Elizabeth Pryor. Pryor wrote a flattering book-- as flattering as she could make it -- but she did carefully mention facts no dared whisper before.



Pryor does use the word "RAPE"  but she first tries to sell black white sexual relations as "dalliances" - - really. 

Only later does she write  "coercion was used in those situation"

When Pryor dips into passive tense, with names, without candid terms, she is not informing you, she is trying to gloss over something.

Coersion? You mean the whip? You mean threats?

Those situations?  You mean rape? You mean forced what?

Keep in mind, Pryor had to see -- on paper - something that made her write "coercion was used".  So what did she see, what did she hold in her hands, that gave her the information?

She does not tell you that. She just gives you the "coercion was used in those situations".

Notice the passive voice? No name -- who used "coersion"?  Who raped who Ms Pryor -- you know, tell us.

What coersion? Whips?  Several white men holding a girl down?  What did you see in the papers that made you tell us that?

WHen Pryor does mention rape, she uses ebonics.  She quotes a slave man, apparently old by then, and disrespectfully quotes him as saying "Lord chid, dats wuz common".

No where else does Pryor quote like that.  Think that's accidental?

  Infact, slave men had to sleep in a different shack, because if they tried to stop the rapes, they were beaten, whipped, etc.

Imagine that -- your "wife" has to sleep in a different building, so the white man can come over and rape her at night.  

Where did that happen?  At Arlington.  What happened as a result of those rapes?  Light skinned children were born.

Who owned those light skinned children?   Robert E Lee.

He had letters from bounty hunters, and he wrote to them, because Pryor carefully gets that information in, again, in a way intended to misinform, rather than inform.  But she gets it in.

She can tell who Lee paid, and how much, for which slaves. Do you think she got that information from, a duck? No she got it from his papers, she has his papers in her hands, this book is about HIS PAPERS.

Remember that when you read her smooooooth prose. 

Pryor's narrative in "Reading the Man" about Lee's papers is extremely flattering overall. She opens the book with a long self serving letter from Lee. As you will see, Lee was a wordsmith, he had a way of claiming religious motives for anything, including slavery and torture -- yes, torture.

She COULD have opened the book with a list of prices he paid for slave girls.  She COULD have opened it with his  list of bounty payments for light skinned girl. She COULD have opened it with a list of payments for bounties for FREE people his hunters found in the North while they searched for escaped slaves.


 Lee wrote sexually explicit letters for decades -- not to his wife -- but to various women.  Pryor hardly mentions them -- and carefully selects the tid bit she does share.  Lee wrote about sex tricks he used  -- when writing a woman not his wife.  He wrote about his son's sexual abilities.

How many times have your written letters bragging about your son's sexual abilities?   We don't know the context, -- Pryor aint telling -- and why isn't she telling?  Why mention these letters at all, if she isn't going to make it clear what was going on.

How many sexually explicit letters have you written to women that you didn't have some sexual interaction with?

And remember, this was 1840-1870.  People did not write sexually explicit letters then, certainly not to various women, and not for decades.

But Lee did.   Even after the Civil War, Lee wrote sexually explicit letters. Yeah, that guy.  But writing dirty letters is one thing.

Having slave girls whipped -- while you scream at them -- an another matter entirely.



Lee had  his soldiers capture free people living in North DURING the war,  taken South and sold as slaves. That's well known, and not even disputed. 

But in Lee's papers -- Pryor learned that Lee already did the same thing, before the war, as a private citizen.   Lee bought free people living in the North, BEFORE the CIvil War, from his bounty hunters. His hunters didn't didn't care if they were escape slaves or not -- Lee didn't care either. He bought them.  Yes, your lovely Robert E Lee turned free people into slaves, before and during the Civil War.  


Pryor  COULD have opened it with newspaper accounts -- at least three of them -- confirmed by his own words in his own slave ledgers, of the torture of a slave girl so small, so young, the Overseer refused to whip her. Lee had  her whipped anyway, and screamed at her all through her torture.

But she opens every chapter with something sweet about Lee, like he gave his old clothes to the slaves. Uh, he sold slave children, he had them whipped, he bought children from bounty hunters.  She tells you that -- but never in the first part of a chapter, and never candidly.  Never in a way that makes  you see Lee choosing which slave girl to sell, or see Lee handing the money over to bounty hunters for children - FREE CHILDREN -- that his bounty hunters caught in the North.

Pryor is a superb writer -- when she wants to you to know something, she makes it vivid, visual, unmistakable.  But when she wants to gloss over some  horror, she can write things like "Lee failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork."

The "paperwork" she alluded to, never existed, because it's paperwork about paying bounty hunters for FREE women and children Lee's hunter caught in the North. There was no paperwork for that, and shame on Pryor for misdirecting that way.

Pryor COULD have opened with a list of prices paid for women and children Lee's hunters found living free in the NORTH -- yes Lee bought women and children, not escaped slaves at all -- the were in the North. Pyror artfully says "Technically, Lee may have broken the law"  and that Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork"

So even when Pryor admits a horror -- she instantly entombs it in double talk nonsense.  But she does admit the horrors.

Pryor only seems offended, in the slightest, when she finds out about WHITE LOOKING slave girls, as if beating, raping, selling black looking girls was fine, but it's sure HORRIBLE to do that to whites!


Pryor  opened with a self serving letter Lee wrote -- like all Southern leaders, Lee was adroit with language, and self flattering prose. Think that was by accident? Or do you think she and the Lee family thought Lee's own artful words -- as opposed to his cruel tortures -- would be a nicer opening.

(yes, torture is the right word, Lee had girls tortured, and tortured cruelly as you will see)



Lee's slave ledgers confirm the tortures, the payments to the man whipping the girls,  -- and much more.  


Why did Lee have this girl (and many others) whipped?   They tried to escape.  


Why did the newspaper even bother writing a report on Lee whipping slaves?  Whipping slaves was legal,  but this torture was different, because Lee did it in front of many people.

Plus. the overseer, the man who usually whips slaves, refused to do so.
That's right, the overseer refused to whip one girl. Why did he refuse?   She was too young. SHE WAS TOO YOUNG.

Take a minute, think this over.  Lee had slave girls whipped that the regular overseeer-- a man who regularly tortured people for the master- - refused to whip.


Try to take that in.   It's disgusting anyway, to torture anyone, but here Lee had slave girls tortured THAT WERE TOO YOUNG according to the guy who whipped slaves for a living.

Now  you see why it made the paper.  

This really should not surprise us -- slavery was a violent enterprise -- men do violent things, when they have unlimited power.   

Slave owners could NOT tolerate slaves escaping or fighting back -- try to understand that.  What would happen if a slave owner allowed escapes? This is not rocket science.

What would happen if a slave owner allowed slaves to fight back, to knock a white man down. 

We have been fed bullshit by our silly movies and Southern apologists -- slavery was a sex based, violent based enterprise.  The fact that over half -- thats right over half -- of Lee's slaves were NOT dark skinned, should tell you somethin

And Pryor told you something -- deep in the book, after a bunch of Orwellian BS -- Pryor did tell us, rape was COMMON.   COMMON.  Remember, she did not get that from dreaming it up, she is trying to protect Lee.  But from the papers she held, she could tell, rape was COMMON.

Were all slave women raped?   Well, they could not resist, they could not fight back, they could be whipped, their children sold, their "husbands" whipped -- slave owners did NOT play nice.  Their religious bullshit was a cover.   Religious men don't torture, enslave and sell children.

But Lee did. 

Yeah, that Robert E Lee.  

And this was BEFORE the Civil War, reported in papers at the time

Virginia Historical Society

The Lee family -- and Virginia Historical Society -- vetted and chose Ms Pryor personally, to study, at length, two trunks of Lee's personal papers.

Why not just copy them and let everyone see?   You will figure that out, soon.

As Pryor shows, as the rapes of the lighter skinned girls continued, even lighter skinned children were born, as slaves.

As Pryor said "Whites were increasingly enslaving other whites 

Then they ("historians") just repeated each other, like an echo.  Too bad much of it was simply not true. 

Cooke claimed Lee and ALL HIS officers would dismount during battle, as bombs blew up around them, for a nice long silent prayer.

And honestly, people are so stupid, they believed it. 

Cooke's book is sold right now, today, this minute.  You can buy a copy easily.

 If that happened, if Lee and all his officers prayed during battle,  why didn't anyone say that for 20 years, till Cook came along? And why didn't anyone say it since?

That kind of nonsense is on every page, of nearly every Lee biography.

Nothing is too goofy to claim. 


He also used bounty hunters -- extensively. She could have easily written a book all about his payments for slaves, and the bounty hunters, but that was not her goal.


Two of the three men depicted on the largest bas relief sculpture on earth, had slaves whipped, and sold children. The other one didnt own slaves himself, but his family got rich from it.


  Pryor calls the slave ledgers "monthly account books" --  not slave ledgers.  Gee, I wonder why.



The Lee family still have the papers, yet it might take another 150 years for them to let anyone study them again.

WHere the Lee myth came from 



Remember, he had them tortured because they tried to escape. 



We all use linguistic "tricks" to give the impression we want. There are a thousand ways to say something, and Pryor always picks the way most calculated to smooth over Lee's vile actions, or excuse them.  

Minimize + gloss over + excuse, is essentially her approach to Lee "facts".

 As Pryor showed, Lee's biggest problem with slaves was the many escapes - but the Lee MYTH was that he had freed his slaves (false) or they refused to leave!  (Absurd).

Pryor does tell us Lee had  "epidemics" of escapes.  Hell -- HOW MANY escapes.  Remember, she had the information in her hand, the dates most likely, the names, most likely  She had that, or she could not have told us there were  epidemics of slave escapes.

She does mention once, he had 12 escaped slaves loose -- but did he have 50 at one time? 100?   There is a reason she is vague, and most likely, any time she is vague, she is vague to minimize the horrors, violence and cruelty 

she wont say how many, but escaped slaves encouraged others. And the escapes started immediately.

Men, when they oppress, rape, torture, steal, enslave, murder, etc, must, must rationalize it in their head.  


Mankind are not animals, we do not just kill without some kind of excuse. But then, animals do not kill without some kind of reason. Animals do not torture one another, sell one another, or need or make excuses to do so.

Slavery and rape of slaves, whipping slaves, sale of children (yes Lee sold children) takes a special kind of scum, sociopath OR someone who can rationalize and excuse.

Lee,like most slavers, rationalized by claiming God ordained it, they were doing the will of God. 

In fact, Lee and many other slavers insisted they were burdened, the slaves were fortunate, because they were learning about Jesus!   Better his slave than a Godless heathen in Africa, Lee wrote (paraphrasing)  Lee used that bullshit like others slavers. He was not at all unusual.

But Lee didn't give a shit about Jesus for his slaves, remember, he had women and c hildren kidnapped from the North who were never in Africa, and Lee probably never saw a slave that was from Africa.  But he would use that "heathen in Africa" nonsense, and stupid people even today buy that garbage.

Did Lee free them when they learned about Jesus? Are you kidding, they were raped, and beaten, as you will see, long after they learned about Jesus.

Did Lee check to see if the women and children he bought from hunters that kidnapped them from the North were bible believers?  HELL NO.   

Try to grasp this -- not just about Lee, but about mankind generally -- men do things because they want to, and it gives them power prestige and control or access to women.   Then, just like Lee did, they make up some lofty sounding bullshit to obscure the fact they just wanted power, prestige, and control of women.

Lee was no exception. 


While Pryor has thousands of Lee's letters, there is only ONE used by Lee devotees to claim he was against slavery.

Talk about bullshit - read the full letter. Yes, it starts out with Lee telling his wife slavery is a political and moral evil --  that's the part Southern crybabies have shown for 100 years.  (Of course they never showed, and still don't, his dirty letters and slave ledgers).

But read the REST of the letter!!   It's a smooth but cruel defense of slavery and the pain he used eagerly and often

Lee wrote that abolitionist were "against God"  and that slavery was "a religious liberty". And that "pain is necessary for their instruction" and they "must endure painful discipline" .  Lee's wife was a stupid woman, she fell for religious BS, so that's what Lee used. He used the religious excuse on himself too.  

But remember, Lee wrote dirty letters too - sexually suggestive letters about sexual activites, to various women, FOR DECADES. Pryor wont say how many (Pryor is never candid--remember that) but Pryor does say there were many, and he did it for DECADES.  

Try to grasp that.  Yeah, Lee used religion when it suited him, like to justify his purchase and torture (torture is the right word) of women, but Lee was NOT a religious man.  Faking religion may impress the stupid, but it's not a faithful man who tortures slave girls and sells children.   He bought women and children that his hunters found in the North -- if you think he did that to give them Jesus you are an idiot and get off this page.

So read the full letter -- and better yet, learn what Lee did. 


His "poor communication skills" was not quite pretentious enough, so she added "poor cross cultural communication" skills.

She goes on --  Lee "had every right" to "protect  his property," and writes that Lee  those slaves "tested Lee".

Later we find out those mean old "testers" included children -- and white looking slaves -- and Lee had them all whipped.  In fact, according to newspaper reports at the time (three overlapping reports) Lee had a girl whipped that was so young, the overseer (the guy who usually whips slaves) refused to whip her!

Pryor never puts that all in once place, at one time, in one page.  In fact, I know a guy who claimed to be a history teacher, and said he read her book, and he didn't notice any whipping by Lee.  I had to show him the pages.


You can miss all his tortures, bounties, and even rapes, just don't read her words closely.   She opens with a letter from Lee to his children.  And her narrative is as flattering as she can make it. 

And what she never says, is important too. She held in her hands his slave ledgers -- very detailed, monthly records, that LEE himself kept, and he was famous for detail.   She can tell you which slave he bought, an which day, and how much he paid which bounty hunter.

Why not tell us- -for example -- how many slaves he owned?

Yes, HE owned slaves and managed his wife's, and bought more slaves from bounty hunters.   Well, he bought free people too - and Pryor admits that, very carefully (see below).

 Someone was raping slave girls at Arlington -- Pryor admits rape was common, but claims "there is no evidence" Lee participated.

What moral code  did he use to resist raping girls who had to do every word his said, as if he were God?    The same moral code that stopped him from whipping them?  That moral code that stopped him from paying hunters to kidnap them?

Lee's moral code -- according to his own letter -- including inflicting pain --pain was necessary for their instruction.   What would such a man NOT do?   What is on his "don't do this" list?

Not much. 

Lee paid hunters, he not only had slave girls whipped, he screamed at them during torture.   Did he have an elaborate code that let him allow the girls to be raped, let him buy girls, whip girls, but stop short of raping them himself? Really?   WHere would that code be?  


Pryor is artful -- to the point of Orwellian.   Cearly she does not want to shock anyone, and remember, she worked with the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society.  Considering those limits on candor, it's surprising Pryor got any of the horrors in --but she does.

    She sprinkles the horrors, rapes, bounties around, a little here, a little there, like MSG in a Chinese buffet,  never bluntly saying anything candid or straightforward.



Pryor not only avoids hitting you over the head with the horrors, she goes to extremes to mention them as casually and her amazing rhetorical skills can.    For example, when telling us about Lee's purchase of FREE women and children, who lived in the North, but Lee's bounty hunters illegally kidnapped (really) -- she puts it as a "paperwork" issue, saying "Lee failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork".  

You  cant be sure what she is talking about, she is a diplomat and adept at double talk --but smooth.  In the passages about Lee's purchase of free women and children, she is so vague, you have to re-read it several times.   She mentions "others" -- others his bounty hunters caught. Who could others be?

They had to be -- OTHER than Lee's escaped slaves.  That's who others are.  And she knew that, Pryor could tell you what Lee paid, to which hunter, and on what date.  


Pryor writes Lee "failed to fill out time consuming paper work". 

Yeah, like they HAD paperwork about kidnapping free people, women and children, and turning them into slaves.    Pryor ends that work of Orwellian art by saying "Technically, Lee may have broken the law".  Of all Pryor's artful dodges, that is the most clever - and sick.  Lee buys free women and children, if they try to escape he has them whipped -- and this is what she writes?


    But -- compare her to any other Lee "scholar" -- Pryor is a bastion of candor.  

 No one else ever dared admit these things, in fact, they had Lee as anti slavery, so  beloved by his "servants" that they refused to leave.  See what total bullshit that is--below.  So Pryor  is, compared to others, the current queen of candor.

She does admit, however, that Lee's slaves said Lee was "the worst man we ever knew" -- a far cry from the nonsense that Lee didn't own any, or  that slaves refused to leave him, when he supposedly gave them their freedom.

Lee is therefore the only military person in US history to have civilians captured during war -- and sold as slaves.   But he did not wait for the war to do this -- he paid bounty hunters to do it for him, before the war.  And he paid good money to have free people turned into slaves -- yeah, your Bobby Lee. Your " Greatest Christian"  your "America's Gentleman" was no gentleman.  

See why facts matter?   

And no, Lee did not free his slaves or his wife's slaves till well into the Civil War, and it took three -- count them three -- court ORDERS to Lee to free them

And Lee owned his OWN slaves, and bought some from bounty hunters, Pryor wont give us the numbers.

See how totally opposite Lee was from the  myth?  

It doesnt matter what your smug history teacher told you  -- he got his BS from text books that insist Lee didn't even own any slaves and freed the ones his wife had. No, he didn't do anything remotely like that.

How do we know? Lee wrote it down, that's how.


Wish Pryor would show us the letters from and to Lee's bounty hunters --yes, Pryor had them in her hands. We could learn a lot about Lee from a few sentences about those escaped slaves, or his reaction to his hunters finding "others' for his purchase.

Lee sent bounty hunters after escaped slaves-- FOR MONTHS. Sound like a man against slavery? Really?


Although Pryor isn't about to call them dirty letters -- Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to various women (Pryor wont say how many) for DECADES.   DECADES.

Even after the Civil War, Lee writes sexually explicit letters-! No, not to his wife -- he wrote religious sounding BS to her.  

But to others?  Pryor is cryptic, but he jokes about sex tricks and brags about his son's sexual ability.   He could have seen that displayed, by the way, in the slave barn, but who knows?

Pryor writes "there is no evidence"  Lee did the things in his letters-- but how many women have you written sexually explicit letters to, that you weren't sexual with?   And dozens? For years?

Remember, this was prude time -- men didn't write sexually explicit letters, but Lee did.

What evidence does she need?

She also claims the same "there is no evidence"  linquistic trick, when refering to which white man at Arlington was the father of many of the white or light skinned slaves.  Pryor says "there is no evidence"  Lee was involved in that.  Oh really?

Actually there is evidence SOMEONE white, SOMEONE Lee and SOMEONE in power at Arlington raped the slave girls. Could it have been Lee?   WHo cares, he had them whipped, tortured, terrorized and caught -- his sins against those girls are monumental. And what moral code would stop him from raping them?

That moral code that stopped him from whipping them?  That moral code that stopped him from paying hunters to kidnap them?  

That moral code that stopped him from selling children away from the mother?   That moral code?

Got a clue for ya -- Lee could spew a good religious letter, but he was not a moral guy.  Too complicated?


Pryor is artful about the escapees - but she gets in enough -- he spent a lot of money and time getting slave girls back.  He taunted the girl when the bounty hunter brought her to him, and he immediately had her stripped and whipped.

Get this -- according overlapping newspaper reports at the time -- Lee's over seer refused to whip the girl, because she was so young, according to witnesses.

 That's right, newspapers BEFORE the Civil war, reported Lee's cruelty to slaves, and to slave girls in particular.    After the Civil War, reporters spoke to former slaves, who confirmed the stories.


But LEE -- LEE HIMSELF confirms both the newspapers reports, and the interview with former slaves, in his slave ledgers.

The newspapers that reported Lee's tortures (and torture is the right word) mentioned bounty hunters name, and dates, and local jails where the slaves were kept till Lee wanted them brought to him.

Goofy false claims -- Lee and all his officers would pray during battle, dismount as bombs blew up around him. This is the kind of absurdity we get about Lee, as "scholars" just repeat the nonsense made up by hustlers selling books.  No one claimed Lee did anything like this -- at the time.   

Pryor -- to her credit --looked for and found those names, and those dates, and other things Lee wrote himself, that validated the reports of Lee's tortures, "unquestionably".   So this is not some story someone told after the Civil War, or they heard it blah blah. This is newspaper reports, confirmed by witnesses, and by Lee's own papers. 

Remember that.

 If he was against slavery, and he freed his wife's slaves, and only "servants" remained tho refused to leave because they loved him SO much, what's he doing sending bounty hunters out for MONTHS?

Lee paid far higher bounties for slave girls -- gee, I wonder why?   Could they carry 600% more water? Dig 600% more potatoes for Lee to eat? 

Lee  paid 600% more for females, and he was a frugal man, intent on turning a profit from those slaves.  You will figure out why Lee paid much more -- take your time, it will come to you.


By the way, though Pryor claims Lee was a "planter" -he did no planting, and his money did not come from selling veggies at a farmers market.  

Lee's money came from selling and renting human beings.  The Deep South had the cotton plantations, Lee did not, he  had a slave plantation - that raised SLAVES for profit.   Not that having cotton plantations was any less vile.  But Lee did not sell cotton. He sold people. 

In fact, Lee's slaves had good reason to try to escape - Lee was a cruel slaver, not a moderate one, not a kind one.  Pryor, to her credit, reports Lee's slaves said he was "the worst man we ever seen"

 Lee regularly separated mothers from their children -- he may have even done it for punishment. Pryor tells us most very wealthy slavers tried to keep mother and child together --not Lee.  No, Pryor does NOT show us, or even tell us, why she would say this, remember she was using his own papers, and that vile fact that Lee would separate mothers from their children was in there, doubtlessly so clear Pryor could not ignore it.   So tell us what it was?


A rather honest drawing of Lee, showing his "comb over" that covered his bald  head, that he was so vain about.


 Part of the problem is the larger myth that slavery was "not that bad" and that slaves were treated well  -- especially by men like Lee.

Wrong -- violence was the heart of slavery, and  slave owners could not be slave owners long, if they did not threaten and use violence. 

Lee himself wrote that pain was "necessary for their instruction"  and Pryor relates that Lee was more cruel -- not less -- than other slave owners of his social status.

 Slave masters used every torture -- physical and mental -- to keep their slaves obedient.   To whip two or three slaves, in front of the other slaves, was exactly what Lee did in the famous incident that reached the newspapers, at the time.

But torture was not the only threat -- selling children away from the mother was one of the tortures and disciplines.  And rape, even at Arlington, was common. Yes, it was.

See for yourself -- Lee's papers had proof of rapes, so much so that Pryor, who adores Lee and it must have torn her apart to admit it -- rapes were common AT ARLINGTON.

Slave masters were not the kind hearted well spoken Christian men the South hopes you believe, and is shown in movies.   In fact, the religious BS seems more of an excuse and cover.   There is a difference between excuses men give -- and the reasons they really do things.


Pryor won't say WHO raped the girls --she won't use names.  At one point Pryor even calls the relationship of master to slave women as "dalliances". Yeah, dalliance -- Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers had a "dalliance" -- its a fun, flirtatious, but not necessarily sexual relationship.   But Pryor uses that word -- really.

Only later -- after her readers assume Lee and the other white men were like Fred Astaire and the slave girls were Ginger s-- does Pryor mention the violence.  Yes, violence, involved in rapes.  Or as Pryor so artfully writes "Coercion was used in those situations".

Coercion? You mean beatings?  Used? By who?  No names -- gee wonder why.  Can Pryor write a simple sentence? Of course.

But simple candid sentences found no home in the book -- instead "Coercion was used in those situations".

Do you think Lee, or whoever wrote to him about the rapes, used the sentence "Coercion was used in the situation to rape the 12 year old girl".  

No -- but Pryor got this information from LEE's PAPERS.  She had to translate whatever she saw to "Orwellian double speak" -- and passive voice, with no clear actor, is a good a way as any to gloss over tortures and rapes.

In those situations?  What situations?  She means the RAPES. She was writing about rapes, when she used that sentence. Someone (nameless) used violence (coersion) in those situations (rapes).

Pryor is artful - - to the point of Orwellian double talk and essentially lying  -- but she gets information in that no one dared whisper before. 

And times it seems Pryor is writing two books at once -- one on the surface, to get past the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society.   That's the praise Lee parts. Her narrative if very flattering.

Still, carefully, so carefully, Pryor also gets in the rapes, the bounties, the whippings, she even gets in his purchase of free people he turned INTO slaves. Yes, he did. 

Her most careful language is about his purchase of "others" from his bounty hunters -- yes they caught escaped slaves in the North for him, and he paid them, per his slave ledgers.  But Lee also bought "others" -- others meaning, NOT his escaped slaves.


Pryor claims Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paper work"  regarding his bounty hunter's bounty  -- as if there was paperwork for kidnapping free people and turning them into slaves.   What the hell paperwork? 

Pryor finishes that artful dodge, saying cryptically "technically, Lee may have broken the law."   Technically nothing, Lee bought women and children from bounty hunters -- and some (Pryor won't tell us how many) had never been slaves before.

Oh -- but remember Lee claimed slave ownership because slaves were "better off here than in Africa".  That makes perfect sense to stupid people, never mind that none of Lee's slaves were from Africa, and he turned people into slaves that were from Pennsylvania.

Lee could make excuses for slavery -- but when he wanted women and children, he got them the old fashioned way: he bought them.


Lee  had his soldiers capture free women and children, that were never slaves in their lives, but they had dark skin.  And they were unlucky enough to be seen by Lee's bounty hunters.

If you think bounty hunters and slave owners gave a shit about rights of free people --  you don't know what motivated men like Lee and his hunters.  They used violence to get what they wanted -- and dreamed up excuses later.  Including slave torture, slave rape, and the capture of free people, turning them into slaves.

Oh my my my, the things your history teacher and text book "forgot to mention".  But they told you about his pet chicken.

But they probably told you all about Lee's  horse -- right? And maybe even told you how Lee had pet chickens.  Yeah, history books love to do that crap.

Then they just repeated each other, like an echo.  Which is fine, if the original stuff was true -but it never was true.

Pryor even tries to defuse the torturesLee not only had whipping, which is torture- - but he used other physical tortures!   

But Pryor has an excuse ready for Lee -- one that Lee never claimed, so Pryor had to dream up.   No, Lee wasn't cruel, or hateful, or sadistic.  He screamed at girls as he had them whipped, he taunted girls BEFORE they were whipped.   But that was not his fault -- ya see, Pryor writes the tortures (yes, it was torture) was just an unfortunate result of "Lee's poor cross cultural communication skills".

Yeah, that's it. Poor communication!  And for added measure, to fool the stupid, Pryor added "poor cross cultural" communication skills.

Bet no one told you.

Lee would do the same thing in the Civil War --he ordered his soldiers to capture free blacks in the North, when he was on his Northern campaign, to be taken South and sold INTO slavery.

Yeah --that Lee. 


That's not quite the Lee as told to Virginia kids, and believed by many.  We are told often that Lee "never owned slaves, was against slavery, and freed his "inherited"  slaves long before the Civil War".

Utter nonsense, Lee BOUGHT more slaves, and paid bounty hunters for slaves, according to his slave ledgers, his own handwritten records.

Furthermore Lee's records show he was apparently obsessed with the capture of escaped slaves -- and dozens, perhaps over 100 -- tried to escape. Pryor does mention that his hunters were looking for 12 at one time, one of those a light skinned slave.

But Lee also bought "others" -- meaning other than his escaped slaves-- he bought humans his hunters found in the North. See below.

But here is how Lee is presented now -- this one is hilarious, Lee prays long silent prayers, DURING battle, and dismounts with all his officers, and bombs blew up around them.

Trouble is -- no one ever said anything like that, till these hustlers made up nonsense after he did to sell books.   Plus, Longstreet said Lee was always "well in the rear".

If Lee had all his officers dismount, during battle, for long silent prayer, as bombs blew up around them, I think one of them would mention that somewhere, sometime, in some speech or letter.

Nope.  But this kind of thing happened often -- according to the author.

There are dozens of such books, each competing to be more extreme about Lee the prayer guy during battle, or Lee only wanting to lead souls to Christ -- most of the lies in 1870s were about Lee's Christian extremism.

As time went on, it took more than Lee is Mr Religion to get your books sold.  So Douglas Southall Freeman, with his man crush on Lee,  just blew them all away.

Lee was "the best soldier" of -- well,  best soldier ever, of course, but "by far" a better Christian. By FAR.  


Lee was "the most" chaste, the most kind, the most prayerful -- even the most tidy.  And Lee "had no faults to probe".

Thats the most bullshit.  Lee was cruel, vain, horney, and vengful to slaves. Pryor says "there is no evidence"  Lee took part in the sexual things he wrote about, and "no evidence' he did anything sexual to slave women.  Who knows?  But a man who pays 600% higher prices for certain girls, must  have a reason.

A man who writes sexual letters to various women must  have a sex drive of some sort -- and he did it for DECADES.  

A man who can pretend to enslave blacks for the Lord because they are better off as his slaves than in Africa, bought women and children who were NOT in Africa, and were already "Christian"

Too complicated? Still believe these fucking liars who claim slavery was about giving them the "good news"?   Or was it about getting that good times in the barn, and getting that good money from selling and renting them. 

Lee didn't give a shit about Africans, hell he hated his own slaves, and they were right outside, in his slave barn, or tied up somewhere. 

No faults to probe- AT ALL.  If that were not enough, Lee "now sits at the right hand of Christ his Lord".   

Yeah -- Lee and Christ, side by side, forever.  Yes, it got that crazy-- and remember, this was by a Pulitizer Prize winning "historian" -- who just made up shit.


A fraud committed by the Pulitzer Prize winning Lee biographer Douglas Southall Freeman, we expose here.  It's about Freeman's claim that Lee's slaves loved him most of all "Those that knew Lee best, loved him the most"  Freeman said idiotically about Lee's slaves.   Lee's records show the slaves hated him, tried to escape at risk of torture and their lives, and said Lee "was the worst man we ever seen".

Freeman's fraud was claiming a "Mack Lee" had been a slave to Lee -- stayed with him all through the war, and claimed Lee was the kindest man who ever lived.  

Actually, that Mack Lee was a  hustler always raising money for his church, in the 1920's.  He would appear in Confederate Uniform,  to white churches, in former slave states.

He would go up and down the streets, handing out a pamphlet, which told people to come to hear him speak. He was always raising money for his church, which apparently never did get built.

 The pamplet was filled with incorrect information about Lee and the Civil War -- of course Freeman would know that.  WE know the names of the three slaves Lee had as "body servants" during the war, and none of them was named Mack Lee.

Furthermore  Mack Lee was more of a comic than anything, he would claim he and Lee were in a cabin during a Civil War battle, when a Union shell tore through the wall and blew up next to his head. Robert E Lee ran over to him and said "I aint never seen no nigger hit by no cannon ball in the head".

This brought laughs from the crowd -- and maybe a few bucks in the collection plate, but it wasn't true. Lee was never near an exploding cannon ball, in any cabin, or it would have been in 50 Civil War memory books, from the men nearby.

Plus, Lee  was always "well in the rear" according to Longstreet.

Mack Lee -- or whatever his name was - told churches the white man was right about race - the blacks were lazy and should appreciate the white race for all they did for the blacks.

 Mack Lee --
Never one of Lee's slaves
And Freeman knew it.

Freeman never told anyone about that.   The way Freeman wrote it, Mack Lee was a pastor and man of honor.  Freeman knew better than anyone Mack Lee was not near Lee during the war, and certainly was not his body servant.

 Remember, Freeman knew every detail about Lee every day of the Civil War. There was no Mack Lee around Robert E Lee.

Remember, Freeman would know that - about appearing in Confederate uniform to white churches in the South.  But  this one man -- and his supposed book (which was a pamphlet he handed out as he walked up and down the street) is what Liar Freeman used to "prove" Lee was beloved by his "servants".

Lee was HATED by his servants -- and they proved it by trying to escape, and Lee proved his hatred of them by having them tortured.

Lee wrote that God knew -- and intended -- that slaves feel pain. Slaves "must endure painful discipline"  because pain is "necessary for their instruction". Abolitionist were on "an evil course" against God. God will end slavery in his own time - perhaps 2000 years, Lee suggested. 

 Lee wrote that slaves were fortunate to be slaves, the slave owner was the guy just doing the Lord's will.  And Lee wrote that slavery was a "religious liberty".

Sound like a guy against slavery to you?  
But forget the self serving drivel Lee wrote in one sentence.

 Find out what he actually did to slaves -- especially slave girls. Lee paid much higher prices for slave girls-- for a frugal man to pay 600% higher prices for girls, maybe there was a reason he did so.

Pryor has to straddle two worlds -- she works with the Lee family, and Virginia Historical Society, which exists, essentially, to flatter Robert E Lee (yes, it does). 

   But  Pryor is also scholar, and in her hands she held Lee's slave ledgers, his dirty letters, his orders to shoot Confederate soldiers who ran during battle (a la Stalin).   She also learned of the massive desertions by Lee's own troops, when the myth is, they loved him so much.  

She held evidence of torture, rape, and cruelties that would be shocking no matter who did them -- but Lee?  Lee? 

How do you handle information that is contrary to the myth?  Does she tell the family the bad news, bluntly?  Or does she go along to get along.

She went along to get along, but she ALSO inserted -- carefully- Lee facts.  

"Pryor tries so hard -- but the Lee papers held so many horrors. She had to be stunned at what she found." 

( supposedly )

Nearly every "Lee expert" can recite the exact words from a letter Lee wrote to his wife, about slavery.


Lee wrote MUCH more about slavery than that -- but he did write that slavery was a political and moral evil -- but read the rest of the letter!   Lee was mollifying his wife, apparently trying to explain away the tortures and whippings, that started when Lee took over her slaves,  that she was raised with, played with.

Suddenly, when Lee took over, he had slaves whipped, and use other tortures.  Read the rest of THAT letter!   Lee claims slaves "must endure" painful discipline -- pain is "necessary for their instruction".   He also claims slavery is a "religious liberty" .

Lee  insisted -- at least to his wife -- that God ordained slavery and he, Lee, was following God.   The slaves were "immeasurably" better off as slaves, doing God's will. Only God can end slavery --and only by PRAYER (Lee's wife was a sucker for God talk and prayer talk, and Lee knew it) by asking God, can we end slavery in HIS time.  

Slavery was rescuing these "savages" from the jungles of Africa, Lee insisted, God was doing it for their own good!.   Only, Lee didn't believe that bullshit for a minute, because Lee bought women and children from Pennsylvania - NOT AFRICA -- and he turned those women and children into slaves, they were not slaves before.  And Lee didn't give a shit if they were African "savages" or born again Christians filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.  


Pryor tells us that "immediately" the slaves "tested" Lee -- and we find out later, that means they ran away.   But Lee sold their children, Lee had them whipped, Lee paid bounty hunters to catch them. 

Slaves did not run away easily -- it was sure to get them tortured, if caught, and what you don't know, some masters whipped the children or mother of any slave that did escape. Yes, the mother or child left behind could be tortured for the escaped slave, though Pryor does not mention that as a Lee "thing" - it happened, whoever the master wanted to whip, got whipped.  Whoever the master wanted raped, got raped.  And if you don't believe that, go read the first person accounts by slaves themselves, including Elizabeth Keckely, a woman tortured by a man who just wanted to strip her and torture her,  for no reason whatsoever.  He did not even own her, he got permission to have this fun, from the slave owner. 

Was she also raped? She did not say, but we know rape was common at Arlington.






Q.  How do you write a flattering narrative, about a man who tortured girls, sold babies, bought women and children who were never slaves before Lee  got his hands on them?

A. Very carefully.

If you didn't know Lee's name, but just knew "JOE BLOW"  had slave girls tortured while he screamed at them, that rape was common at JOE BLOWS slave farm, (yes, it was a slave farm) and that JOE BLOW bought women and children from bounty hunters, and that during war, JOE BLOW ordered his soldiers to catch free women and children in enemy territory, taken back to JOE'S country, to be sold as slaves ---- would you call JOE BLOW a monster?

If JOE BLOWS own slaves said he was the "meanest man we ever see" -- if JOE had so many rapes at his farm, that white looking children were born, and JOE paid highest bounties for girls -- would you call JOE BLOW a monster?

Most people would.

150 years of bullshit about Lee is enough already.   Even though Pryor's careful writing softens the horrors as much as she can,  no one else even dared mentioned these facts.   And worse, "scholars" have lied to us -- see below about Pulitzer Prize winner Douglas Southall Freeman, and his man crush on Lee.


Ms Pryor gets the horrors in -- she gets in the rapes, the bounty hunters, the dirty letters, even the bounty payments for girls that were 600% higher than for men or boys.


Who whipped slave girls? Who bought them from bounty hunters?  Who defended torture as "intended and known" by God?   Who claimed pain is "necessary for their instruction".

This guy -- right here.  Welcome to the power of myth.

Lee's stone carving -- the largest in the world, made deliberately
larger than Lincoln's at Rushmore.

Repeat a myth often enough, absurdly enough,  and people will not only believe it, but swear to it.  

How can a man who had slave girls whipped, while he taunted them,  be a hero to so many?  How can we name schools after a man who sold children, defended the torture of slave girls, and bought free women and children from bounty hunters?

Easy -- tell them bullshit, and don't tell them what he actually did. 

under  not read this if your hero is Robert E Lee, you won't like it.


Pryor wont even call the records she has in her hands, by their common name, SLAVE LEDGERS.  Very likely Lee wrote that on the front, or in the front cover.  But you wont see a picture of those slave ledgers from her.  She will show you a picture of a drawing for a pile driver, however.

Pryor refers to the books as  "monthly account books".   Think Lee wrote "Monthly Account books" on the cover of each one, really?  Think Pryor didn't use a thesaurus to find a replacement for "slave ledger"? 

But give her credit -- no one else dared mention any of this, not ever, not since Lee surrendered.  

Instead, we have been fed nonsense, so much so that "historians" have told us Lee was the greatest Christian "by far" (seriously) and "now sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord".  

Seating arrangements are big deal for men who whip girls while they scream at them, so I'm sure Lee enjoys his seat by the Lord.

Historians even know his thoughts as he died, on his way to sit next to the Lord.


Pryor doesn't lie -- she deceives by smooth rhetoric. Orwell would be proud.

Slave ledgers are are "account books" of slaves -- purchases, sales, rentals. So was Pryor lying, exactly?   

The "account books" are so detailed that that Pryor can pinpoint which slave was whipped on which day, and how much Lee paid for certain slaves, and verify what other kind of tortures Lee used. 

The slave ledgers by themselves are horrid enough, but the letters to and from Lee from bounty hunters, and documents such as newspapers at the time detailing Lee's tortures (torture is the right word, get over it), when checked against each other, give a scholar like Pryor a stunning insight into the facts. 

Pryor artfully tells you about the "account books" and other papers Lee wrote -- but does she ever claim to be candid?  Look close -- no, she does not. In fact, the subtitle of her book is "A Portrait".  And she knows "portrait" is a flattering work of art, or was in Lee's time, it is not meant to show the ugly stuff. 

But no one else ever -- ever -- admitted there was any ugly stuff. Actually, there were boat loads of ugly. 


Pryor held  Lee's  slave ledgers in her hands - studied them, correlated them by date and name to letters, bills, receipts, and newspapers reports.  Other than Lee himself, likely no one spent as much time as she, on those slave ledgers.

  She knows EXACTLY how many slave ledgers --uh, monthly account books -- Lee wrote, but she didn't even tell us  Did he have 50? 10?  200?  500?

How many white looking slaves?  He had slaves that could almost pass for white -- how about a number? How about telling us, did he buy them? Sell them? Rent them out?   She had the slave ledgers, they were extensive, apparently, and detailed. 

So why not tell us? 


Pryor's most artful dodge, most clever use of language, she saves for Lee's purchase of women and children Lee's bounty hunters caught in the North while looking for escaped slaves.

Lee's biggest trouble with slaves -- they kept trying to escape, even though Lee would have them chased for months, and tortured upon their return (see  below).

But stunningly, Lee's hunters didn't much care who they caught, his run aways, or some poor souls they found that were black, IN THE NORTH.

 Pryor, in the Orwellian bullshit of the century, claims " Lee failed to fill out the time-consuming paperwork" but "might have technically broken the law". 

What the hell paperwork is she yapping about?  You seriously believe Lee had "time consuming paperwork" issue when he had his hunters capture free women and children?

Show us a damn copy of that paperwork that Lee "failed to fill out" and some indication that's why Lee didn't fill it out.  Seriously, she claims paper work, where is it? 

What form was Lee supposed to use?  1040A, for slave babies, 1040 long form if you grab people who lived in the North legally and free, and had never been slaves in their life?    

So there was a form, according to Pryor, it was just too time consuming for Lee. 

And how does she know if it's "time consuming".

Did Lee indicate he WOULD have filled out that mysterious paperwork, but didn't because it was so "time consuming"?

Hell no, Pryor made that excuse up.   And she didn't make it clear the "others" were never slaves to begin with, till Lee's hunters caught them.    
Orwell much, Ms Pryor?


Ms Pryor gets in the whippings, and even other tortures Lee used. She is careful on those, too.   She could have chosen  the title, "Lee and His Bounty Hunters"  with subtitle "Paying For Flesh - The Lee Slave Ledgers."

Can you imagine if Lincoln's personal papers showed tortures, whippings and bounty payments for free people capture illegally?  You think the Virginia Historical Society would do everything possible to gloss over that? 

You think a Southern "scholar" would excuse Lincoln kidnapping women and children and turning them into slaves as "a time consuming paperwork issue".

When you realize how clever and deceptive Pryor is -- on one hand -- but give her credit for mentioning the horrors and rapes, and tortures at all -- you will know what a wonderful, but bizzare book Pryor wrote.

She did her best, no doubt, because she worked with the approval of, and under the watchful eye of, the Lee family.


Pryor is not out to trash Lee, or even tell the candid truth. Maye she wished she could.

 She worked with the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society, which exists, basically, to honor Lee and other slave owners. Yes, it does.  And no, they don't want you to know Lee tortured slave girls or bought free women and children from bounty hunters.  They want to you think Lee is the best Christian since -- well, since Christ.

 Pryor even managed to get a thumbs up from Journal of Southern History, which makes me doubt they bothered to read Chapters 4, 6 and 10 at all. (edit that later). 

Pryor gets in the horrors --she even calls them horrors -- oh so so so carefully.  True, she saves the word "horror" for her reaction to the WHITE LOOKING slave girls at Arlington.  whipping blacks and raping black girls didn't seem to much bother her, as you will see. Those girls "tested" Lee -- what's the poor guy to do? 

 But WOW was Pryor pissed when the light skin girls got the Lee treatment too.  

She paints a flattering PORTRAIT  of Lee with smooth skin and noble bearing, but the acne, boils, cancers and leprosy of Lee, she deftly draws so small, with such clever air brushing over top,  that you may not notice, all at.

In fact, one Lee devotee read the book and then claimed, "Lee was more complicated than I thought."  Complicated?  Not sure men who scream at girls as he has them whipped, sells children, and buys women and children from bounty hunters is that complicated.  

Maybe the excuses are complicated, maybe the stories trying to paint him as the greatest Christian since Jesus (Im  not kidding) seems complicated. 

 But Lee was not so complicated. He wanted wealth and status from owning slaves, and he not only didn't mind whipping them, he seemed to enjoy it, if screaming at girls, taunting girls, is an indication you enjoy it.

 Through his "PRIVATE PAPERS".


The only reason Lee's papers are still  "private" is  the Lee family didnt let anyone see them for 150 years, and they aren't letting anyone but Ms Pryor, see them now. 

Instead of the slave ledgers, or even one page of them, Pryor shows a Lee's drawing of a pile driver, here...


Seriously, she has in her hands Lee's order and payments to have slave girls whipped, she has his comments about white looking slave girls, she has prices, and names, of people Lee bought that were free and  never had been slaves, till Lee got his hands on them.

What does she show? Any of that?

No -- she shows some drawing of a pile driver. 


Pryor is trying to keep that halo upon his head. There is no other earthly or possible reason.

A technique she uses throughout the book is to SEEM to talk about slave owners generally, or in the area.   She does not use Lee's name in that paragraph, or in that page, sometimes Lee's name is three pages away!

But she is talking about LEE's slaves--- and his slaves, and at Arlington.  

Those are his papers, she is writing a book about Lee. 

Read each sentence carefully, she is a wordsmith like Lee himself.  She does not deny it's Lee who "is enslaving whites" she just makes it so vague, you are not connecting Lee to the white slaves, necessarily.  


Well who the hell is the "white" that she is writing about -- Lee. And who the hell does she tell us has over 50% of his slaves were mulatto in 1860 -- LEE. 

And where is the letter from that mentions the white looking slave girls? ITS FROM ARLINGTON.  And who runs Arlington?

Robert E Lee. But unless you are willing to connect the dots, the way Pryor writes, you can miss it's Bobby Lee who was enslaving whites, cause he was.   White is a look -- ya know.  If you enslave people who look white, you are enslaving a white.

Too complicated?

Pryor is not talking about his neighbor, but she dare not write candid sentence like, "Lee owned four girls who could pass for white, and his records indicate he rented them out to whore houses in New Orleans for 2000 dollars a year".  Of course IM making that up, but Lee would have recorded the names, he would have made it clear, which slave, and what price.

Pryor could tell us a lot more than she does -- she knows what he did with those slaves, the prices, the auction house -- whatever it was, Lee had to write it down.   And Pryor held those papers.

Pryor does NOT tell you this, however:  light skinned girls were sold and rented to whore houses in New Orleans.   Light skinned girls who the slave auctioneer considered attractive, could well end up being sold to a man who, shall we say, did not buy her for her ability to pick apples. 

And Pryor had all that in her hands.   She knows where slaves came from that worked in whore houses, and were bought for that purpose. This is the kind of information abolitionist wrote about before the Civil War, in the horrors of slavery.  Where do you think slave girls came from that worked in whore houses?  Think they applied for the job online?    

Pryor nor the Lee family  will not show you one page of his slave ledgers, or one page of his dirty letters, or one letter to or from a bounty hunter.   But they will show you a picture of a pile driver.

In fact, Pryor won't even use the term "Slave Ledger" -- she calls the dozens of slave ledgers "monthly account books"

Those are "PRIVATE"

Pryor starts out, bless her little heart, with slick Orwellian double speak.  She choses words carefully, including the title: Private papers means, you arent going to see them.   But it SOUNDS as if you are going to learn all about those private papers.

Not so much.

A Portrait of Robert E Lee 

A "portrait" of course, is a flattering picture.  

Still -- Pryor does get information out -- in a very gentle way -- that no one dared even hint at, before. 

Why not let us see the actual slave ledgers, get copies, publish them? Put a few list of prices -- a list of his bounty hunters.

How about the names of his light skinned slaves -- yes, he had them, and at least one girl was so light, Lee remarked she could almost pass for white.  And as you will see, when Pryor mentions ONE light skinned girl, it does not mean she is the ONLY one. 



In fact, Lee had the largest number, and the largest percentage, of mulatto slaves in US history, apparently. Gee, the things your history book "forgets" to include.

And the slave  girls born were getting lighter skinned -- "Whites"  Pryor writes, in a passage seething with restrained anger, "were enslaving other whites".

Who? Who was doing that particular white enslaving?

Pryor doesn't write candid declarative sentences like that --quite the reverse.  She writes very careful, vague and bullshit sentences, but at least she tell us. Read that page carefully, the WHITE person that was enslaving other white looking people, was a guy named Robert E Lee

But Pryor uses every bit of her linquistic skills to make that NOT jump out at you, yet that is what she is reporting. Lee had the white looking slave girl, at least one, because she mentions that.  LEE had the very large number and percentage of mulatto slaves --she mentions that too.

Who the hell knew that?   Ever?  Who ever said over half -- yes, over half  -- of Lee's slaves were mulatto?  No one, till Pryor. Who ever said Lee owned ANY light skinned slaves, till Pryor? No one.  This is the part of the book Pryor reports slavery as a "horror".  And she mentions too, that rape was common -- AT ARLINGTON.

But she does all this in her careful prose.  At least she does it, careful, slick, or not.


Bet you had no clue - none, zero, that light skinned slaves could be so light that it was impossible to tell them from a Lee family member.  Pryor probably didn't know either, until she held Lee's letters, to and from Lee. 


Gently -- say it gently, so so gently.

Probably the reason Journal of Southern History gave a good review to Pryor's book, is that it's not obvious that the facts -- free from her clever and gentle way of telling them --don't jump out at you.

For example, rapes were common and Arlington, she gets that in, and Lee paid higher prices for certain girls, she gets that in too.   Someone white was raping the slave girls, and children born to mulatto slave girls, could be very light skinned, almost pass for white.  

Plus, Lee had the highest percentage of light skinned or mulatto slaves known!  Far higher - over half!   

She also gets in the whippings, the bounties, and the fact Lee's slaves said he was the meanest man they ever saw.

Pryor didn't put that all in one page, and she presented each fact in a gentle way.  But the facts, put together, and stated bluntly, are that Lee ran a slave farm, he was especially cruel and his slaves hated him.  Women were raped REGULARLY at Arlington --and someone white was doing the rapes, and the rapes were physically forced.

There are a thousand ways to say anything, and Pryor used her skills to reveal the horrors, without drawing too much attention to it, and certainly without making it clear, Lee was a cruel slaver,  and he justified it by claiming God ordained slavery and the torture (painful discipline). 


Far higher payments for girls -- who even knew Lee bought slaves? 

But why on earth would he pay 600% more for girls?  And if he didn't own slaves, what the hello is he doing buying them from bounty hunters -- including purchase of humans that were never slaves, until Booby Lee got  his hands on them.

 Think real hard, it will come to you. You will figure out why this "Greatest Christian in US history"  according to his Pulitzer prize winning biographer, would want with slave girls.  And when you find out Lee wrote dirty letters, (yes he did) you may find out Bobby wasn't all that "chaste" after all.


Well, would you let someone see your grandfathers dirty letters and slave ledgers?  Would you want your relative, that you bragged of your entire life, that you enjoyed prestige and status from to be exposed as a man who had slave girls whipped and taunted them before and during their torture? Of course not. 



Yes, Lee's slave ledgers still exist, ironically the Union Army saved all Lee's personal effects, furniture, papers, etc., and gave them to the Lee family after the war.

 In fact, though slaves built all of Arlington, cleared the land, did the work, created the wealth, they got nothing after the Civil War.  But Lee and his family got paid for Arlington.  Even after the war, the UNION paid Lee family, not the slaves.  And rather than be grateful, the Lee family has gave the FALSE impression they were robbed of Arlington. Nonsense, the only thievery at Arlington was the torture and forced labor and rapes of the slaves. Yes rapes-- and yes rapes at Arlington.

Hang on to your hat, especially if you believed the bullshit you heard about Lee. 


The myth of Lee mirrors the myth of an honorable South, which cared about "state's rights" and "limited government."

Like Lee's torture of slave girls and purchase of free people from bounty hunters -- the facts show otherwise.  The South rejected states rights, and promised war if Kansas tried to keep slavery out by vote or by legislation.  Sound like state's rights to you? 

Limited government? Orwellian bullshit.  Slavery took very powerful government,  because slaves had to be guarded, sold, executed, hunted, and all opposition to it, stopped. Did you know  speech, writing, and preaching openly against slavery was outlawed in the South after 1840?    Bet you didn't know that. 

Bet your  history teacher didn't know that either. Even preachers could be arrested, and whipped, without ever preaching against slavery -- just owning the wrong book was enough to get you whipped.

Oh you didn't know how crazy ass the South was? Whipping people for owning the wrong book?  That's bizzare -- but that was how slavery operated, it could not tolerate public opposition and condemnation of slavery. 

They didn't put that in the Southern edited text books? Wow, this is my surprised look.  

150 years is enough. Enough Bullshit about Lee being kind or anti slavery -- he was neither. And enough Bullshit about South caring about states rights -they hated states rights when Kansas tried to reject slavery.


It's not just the ledgers -- but Pryor mentions an unbelievable 10,000 letters, apparently to and from Lee, or other paperwork, she gained access too. 

Short of a video crew following Lee around the slave barns and fields and slave auctions, this is about as reliable as it gets.  It's possible the Lee family, living now, had no clue the papers would show rapes, tortures, and cruelties. 

If they just "skimmed" through the papers, the cruelties would not be obvious. Pryor could cross reference the dates, for example, of reports Lee had slave girls whipped, to his dated and meticulous slave records and payments, by date, by name, etc.   


Two trunks of Lee's papers -- including his slave ledgers -- were part of those effects.  Scholars knew the trunks existed, but no one was allowed to study them.

No doubt Pryor was stunned at what she found. A Lee devotee and diplomat, Elizabeth Pryor only knew of the Lee myth, which was different than what she held in her hands, that Lee himself wrote.

Apparently Pryor couldn't show any page of the slave ledgers,  but she wrote a book about those papers. 

Pryor is on "Lee's side". She is not out to trash him. She blames the slave girls for being whipped. 


Poor communication..... yeah that's it.

Pryor could probably win the Orwell award, if that wasn't already taken by Jefferson Davis for claiming liberty is the right to own slaves. 

But Pryor does her best -- Lee's torture (torture is the right word, see the details)  while he screamed at them wasn't because he was angry or mean, no no no.    Lee had them whipped due to his "poor cross-cultural communication skills."

Cross cultural. Nice touch, too bad it's bullshit. Lee communicated very well with slaves, that's what he called whipping --"instruction".   Pain, Lee wrote, "is necessary for their instruction."

I guess Pryor didn't see the movie Cool Hand Luke.


Paul Newman's character was whipped by a prison warden, who screamed about "What we have here, is a failure to communicate".

Of course the movie was showing the cruelty and pathological cruelty of the prison warden, torturing Paul Newman.   Notice, the warden had to justify the torture somehow.

Lee never claimed that excuse -- remember that. 

 Lee was comfortable with his discipline of slaves, in fact, slaves were lucky to be slaves, according to him!  He, the owner, was the one burdened!  

Lee's justification or  "excuse" was that God knew and intended, yes INTENDED slaves feel pain.  Pain is "necessary for their instruction" was his exact excuse.  Slave "must endure painful discipline"  wrote Lee.

 Lee never claimed any failure to communicate,  he claimed  that slaves "Must endure painful discipline".

Lee would use thousands of slaves  in the Civil War (see below)-- Pryor "forgets" to mention that.  Consider this, if you torture and taunt girls for running away in peace time, imagine what Lee would do to male slaves, when his life depended on their work, in war time.  

Pryor  obscures Lee's purchase of free blacks living in the North legally, caught by his bounty hunters.  This may be her most clever word game. She claims  Lee got his escaped slaves "and others" from the hunters, but that Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paper work"  and that "technically, Lee may have broken the law."

  Yeah that's it -- a paperwork issue, so time consuming.  

Pryor presumably got  the information about the "others" caught by his hunters, from his slave ledgers, remember that.   Pryor does not accidently use any word on any page.   Remember that as you read her book.

When she says "others" it's because she does not want to tell you specifics.  She could have, but it sounds better to say others, just like it sounds better to say "time consuming paper work".

You probably believe she knows about these stacks of papers Lee had to fill out, and boy, he just didnt have time.  There was no time consuming paper work to kidnap "others" -- it was a CRIME.   Fugative slave act -- horribly -- gave Southern scum the right to hunt for escaped slaves -- but not to grab "others". Yet they grabbed others.  You think bounty hunters gave a rat's ass if that black woman or child had been a slave  or not?

In fact, any RELATION -- any child born to an escape slave, or a grandchild, was also fair game for Southern bounty hunters. Grab a child, trick someone, hit them on the head, stuff them in a bag, it made no difference -- there were 50 ways to leave your lover, and 100 ways to make money selling people to slave masters.

Pryor should have been clear where she got that info -- but her goal is to NOT reveal anything too startling. And Lee's purchase of free women and children in the North would be too startling.

But do you think Lee gave a damn?  He had girls whipped, he sold children, he taunted and screamed at slaves as he had them whipped. Slavery was Godly, ordained by God.  Do you think a black skinned person caught in Pennsylvania was any different to Lee than one he got from the slave girls being raped right there in his slave farm?

 No doubt Lee recorded their name and price,  or someone wrote him, or he paid someone, and the records were in Pryor's hands. Lee's papers had to reflect WHO these humans were, and how much Lee paid, otherwise, Pryor could not, would not, write such a thing as "others". 

Lee never claimed it was a paper work issue, did he?  If so, show us that.  Thats like saying Lee failed to fill out the paperwork for committing treason or murder -- there is no such paperwork.  But Pryor had so say something.

What the hell paperwork is she talking about, anyway? Does she think Lee had to go to a DMV or IRS office, wait in line for five hours, take a number,and fill out five forms in triplicate?

But Pryor had to say something -- so what would  you say.  SHe was talking about the fugative slave act, she was talking about the slaves his bounty hunters caught.  Then she mentions -- a total of two words -"and others".   WTF?

Sometimes it seems she realizes eventually these slave ledgers will get more scrutiny, and she doesn't want to be criticized for not mentioning these things.  She may want to say "See, right there, page 218, I said  'and others' Gawd".

But the smooth way she writes, you can easily miss the fact she is talking about free human beings caught illegally at all.  


Bet you didn't  hear anything about any of that that in "history" class, did ya? I mean NOTHING.   That's the problem with men who torture, enslave, and buy humans.  Once you tell people any of those things, it just sounds worse than it is, right?

Lee was really a sweet man, right?  So why "bother" telling the public what he did.  Go with the myth. 

Her goal is to keep the myth intact.


Not  Lee's slaves. Lee's slaves were mostly mulatto or light skinned


The way Pryor's prose works, those bad old slaves "immediately tested Lee".  POOR BOBBY, those mean old slaves, dayum, poor guy can't catch a break, the way Pryor writes.

We find out, "testing" means they tried to escape, and Pryor says Lee had "every right" to protect his property.  Oh really? He had every right to send bounty hunters to the North, and capture others too, and have girls whipped, who were so young, Lee's own overseer refused to whip her


 Pryor is such a skillful writer (as was Lee, as were all Southern leaders, by the way) that she can and does smooth over the horrors.

Like the fact according to three and overlapping newspapers, Lee had slave girls whipped, even when his own overseer refused!!  Now imagine refusing to whip a girl, when ordered to by Robert E Lee.

Lee didn't relent, he hired a bounty hunter -- who was watching Lee have his fun (apparently, it was exciting to Bobby to have girls whipped, as you will see) -- to whip the girl!! 

Pryor didn't want to tell you -- historians have known for generations about Lee's torture of slave girls, as reported in papers before the Civil War.   They never told YOU about it though.

But Pryor had to tell us, somehow -- because she found in his own handwritten records, verification of those dates, those names, and payments to various people that are named in those newspapers reports.  

Plus reporters after the Civil War -- when everyone still knew about Lee's reported tortures -- asked former slaves about it.  An ex slave at Arlington told the details -- and those details, Lee himself verified in his own handwriting.  So you think the ex slave got lucky and made up a story that Lee, on those days, verified?


In fact, I know a history teacher who claimed he read this book, and I asked him what he thought about Lee whipping slave girls.  He insisted no such thing is in the book.  THAT is how gently Pryor gets in the whippings and other atrocities.  Pryor has a way of mentioning things, but not drawing attention to them.


So when you blame the girls for being whipped, when you are only offended when white looking slaves are raped or whipped or sold, aren't you revealing your own racism Ms Pryor? 

Ms Pryor wrote this in the 21st century, so she couldn't  approve of slavery, but woven into her clever prose, is much the same  mindset used by slavers themselves.

 Lee blamed the slaves too. He had to, in order to do it.You don't tie up girls and whip them and scream at them, unless in your head it's their fault.  Lee claimed God ordained "painful discipline"

 Pryor, a bit more carefully than Lee,  doesn't accept Lee's justification - God told me to whip the bitch -- but she blamed the slaves too, only she had more time to come up with her Orwellian "failure of cross cultural communication".  


Pryor even gets in how common slave rapes were -- and remember, the papers she has, her focus, is ARLINGTON.  

But when Pryor discovers white looking slaves were at Arlignton, that Lee send bounty hunters after them,  that Lee very likely sold or rented out white looking slave girls are at Arlington,  HOLY SHIT is she pissed.  That's over the line, mister. Now just hold your horses, she seems to say.

Whites were "increasingly enslaving other whites" said Pryor. And called that  a "horror".

Bet you didn't know that.

Whites were enslaving other whites -- AT ARLINGTON. 

Plus Pryor says, in Orwellian double speak  "Coercion was used in those situations" 

But elsewhere Pryor calls the sex between slave and master "dalliances" .  

And then in another section of the book, she inserts that rapes were common at Arlington, and "coercion was used in those situations".

Fred and Ginger had  "dalliances", 
playful fun flirting 

Only later do we learn from her, rape was common, and forced AT ARLINGTON.
"Coercion was used in those situations"

Coercion was used?  By who? On who?  And how the hell do you know that, Pryor? 

Try to grasp this -- Pryor didn't get this "coercion was used in those situations" from a bird or dream.   She got it from LEE's OWN PAPERS.

What Lee said, or was written to him - hell, Pryor ain't telling.

But Lee wrote something, or someone wrote to him. And you better believe if it was noble or kind of Lee, she would have worked that in.

  Here is a clue, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers had a dalliance -- a playful fun flirting.    What on earth did Pryor see, in her hands, in Lee's papers, that told her "force was used" Thats not a dilliance, is it?

Slavery itself is coercion, by definition.  And Lee was into discipline -- for his slaves, including the girls. Lot of coercion came out of Bobby Lee.



Lee the planter. 

Pryor says all Lee ever wanted to be, was a "planter".  How cute.

No, he wanted to OWN a big plantation, like his daddy lost and was disgraced for.

 The way Pryor talks, this  guy in the photo could be what Lee was up to -- a planter.   
"All Lee ever wanted to be was a planter"

She writes about Lee planting this, or fixing that, or harvesting wheat.  No, Lee didn't do that, Lee didn't even dress himself during the war, he had four body servants, did you know that?  But Pryor doesn't want you to see Lee, in your mind, ordering slaves to plant, to fix, to harvest, so she says Lee did.  Sounds better right.  

She can't even say all he wanted to be was a plantation owner.  She used the word PLANTER. You can bet that's deliberate, too.

 Lee's father, who had slave girls hung, not just whipped, by the way, lost their slave plantation by gambling and whoring.

Lee's father is shown as regal and wonderful, much like Lee is, but he was a cruel man too, for example the girl he had hung for knocking down a white man.

Lee Sr would to things like sell his slaves, help them escape, and sell them again. Eventually he was beat to death by white men who he cheated, the poured hot wax in his eyes to make sure he was dead, but he wasn't.  He died in pain and blind from that attack.

 The fall from "grace" for the Lee family, the fall from being rich and owning slaves- shaped Lee's entire life.  He wanted that slave plantation back! He wanted that status, that attention, and those slave girls. 

Pryor's use of Orwellian double talk is as common as her font.

 For example, she writes "Lee planted ... Lee built... Lee repaired ..."  blah blah blah.   Pryor isn't alone, the point is, language is her art, and she uses her hart to paint, as much as she can, a fraudulent picture of Lee. 

  Lee planted?  No, his slaves did.  Lee built ? No his slaves did.  Lee repaired? No his slaves did.  Lee is the guy who paid the bounty hunters, who had slaves whipped, sold and rented out.  Speak honestly, speak candidly, and slavery itself can't happen.

Lee was handsome and famous because of his father's name, but he  had no mansion, he had no status like his Daddy and from his youth.

By the way, Lee did not run a cotton plantation, he had a SLAVE plantation. 

 Slave plantations cash crop was SLAVES.  They bought and sold and raised slaves.  Pryor doesn't tell you that either.  Slave owners like Lee didn't make money by selling the crops,  to city folks.    They made money by selling or renting out HUMAN BEINGS.

So quit this BS about plantations. They were slave farms, and the product was slaves.   Lee's cash crop was human beings.  And Pryor knows it.

Lee's cash for Arlington came from renting or selling humans, the money he paid bounty hunters for the capture of escaped slaves, for example, did not come from trees. 

No US text book has even admitted Lee owned his own slaves, and resisted orders to free his wife's slaves. In fact, almost every US history text book repeats the myth that Lee voluntarily freed his wife's slaves.   



For a guy who didn't own any slaves, Lee sure had an odd habit of paying bounty hunters to catch them, and create new ones.


The slave ledgers, by themselves, don't reveal Lee's passion, his seeming enjoyment at torture -- but combined with his letters, and letters to him,  it's clear Lee was hot to trot for those girls. No Pryor doesn't tell you that, but add up the facts -- dirty letters, highest prices for girls, rape was common at Arlington, Lee was duplicitous.

 Lee didn't just have them chased, he directed the chase by post, and  Lee was there to meet the girl when she came back.


The Lee myth has allowed another  myth   -- the myth of of "honorable" and "kind" slave owners.   

Violence and terror were the very heart of slavery  --slaves were whipped if they ran away,  or disobeyed.  You didn't have to whip all the slaves - just a few would do.

Like the slave woman hung up by one ankle, upside down, for three days, screaming in pain most of the time, until she died.  That gets your attention.

Men who fought back against slavery -- who dared to use violence against those who used violence against them - could be, and were, burned to death.

SO the dumb asses who say "Oh no, they wouldn't be cruel to slaves, just like you don't abuse your equipment, it would have been stupid to abuse slaves".

Slaves learned from watching and hearing of others tortured.   Your tractor can't do that.  Too complicated?

Slavery was a carrot and a stick, and Lee was big with that stick.



Bet your history teacher never told you about this, either.



Pryor oddly adds a page about George Mason's opinion of men "raised from birth" to see slavery as Godly.    Mason never met Robert E Lee ---though he knew Lee's father.  

So why on earth put Mason and his opinion of men like Lee --raised from birth to see slavery as Godly --  in her book? 

Cause Mason eviscerated men like Lee, in the vernacular of the day. Mason said things that Pryor dare not utter--is that why she put his quotes in this book?

Mason essentially said,  of men like Lee  were, to use our vernacular, sociopaths dressed up for church..

Mason used vernacular of the time, said such men were "of a diseased mind"  raised in an "infernal" school, and taught to be blind to sufferings they imposed on others. 

Mason could have told us what slave owners laughed about,  at slave auctions, what they did to women once they bought them, but he was not that specific.   He did tell us they were of diseased mind and from the infernal school (school of hell).

The rape of slave girls was COMMON. C O M M O N.  And of course, Mason would know that.

 Just cause Lee and other slavers spoke religious BS as cover, didn't change that, and didn't fool Mason, because all slave owners were fluent in religious excuses and double talk.

Mason, of course, knew that.

Mason even predicted men like Lee (raised from birth to see slavery as from GOD)  would  lead the South into a violent calamity regarding the SPREAD of slavery. 

Mason said slave owners who thought God ordained slavery were as cruel as any men in history, these slave masters who would dress and speak in lofty ways.  Of diseased mind -- duplicitous, fake. So the fancy garments men like Lee and Davis wore, the bullshit religious fakery, didn't fool him, in fact, he seemed to think it was part of the cover for the debauchery and cruelty.


New York Times recently ran an article about Lee's capture of free blacks during the Civil War, and how he had them taken back to the South, and sold as slaves.

But Lee did that BEFORE the war -- using his own bounty hunters.  Lee's hunters found free blacks in the North, while searching for his escaped slaves, and just grabbed them too, and Lee bought them. See more about that below. That's in Pryor's book -- oh so carefully, but it's there.


Pryor gets in the fact Lee paid for "others" besides the escaped slavery-- simply saying the bounty hunters found "others," and then saying Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paper work".

What the hell paperwork is she talking about? 

Remember, Lee claimed slavery was fine, because they are better off as slaves than as heathens in Africa.   If you accept that bullshit, and it is bullshit, hello -- these free women and children he bought were not in Africa, were they? 

 They were in Pennsylvania and Maryland.  They had never seen Africa.   Neither did any of Lee's slaves. So Lee has free humans captured in the North --how the hell are they better off than in Afica, they are NOT IN AFRICA. 

Seriously, stupid people to THIS DAY buy that "better off here as slaves" than in Africa. If people were not so easily swayed by bullshit, slavery would not  have happened in the first place.

But Pryor hopes you don't figure that out.  

As usual, Lee is presented as the victim.  You never heard of the woman and children Lee's hunters found in the North.  But Lee tried to pass himself off as the victim -- seriously. The slaves were LUCKY, he wrote his wife, the burden was on the slave owner!  Doing all that work for those slaves!

Yes, it gets that crazy, when you justify slavery.


Noble - the greatest soldier, but by far the greatest Christian.  

His "only concern" was "to lead men to Christ".  Blah blah blah.

Even today, people try to claim Lee SAVED THE UNION!!

There simply is no bullshit too goofy to sell to suckers, and suckers will believe.

Strangely, Lee took time out of leading men to Christ to have girls whipped, pay drastically higher bounties for girls, and even write sexually explicit letters to numerous women for decades. So maybe that whole "Lead men to Christ" thing was not in only concern. 

Dozens -- probably hundreds - of books about Lee after 1880, and each one more fact free, but more "adorational" than the last.  Like this one by John Esten Cooke -- still sold today as fact (!) -- that has Lee and all his officers dismounting during battle, for a long silent prayer, as bombs blew up around them.  

Yet these books are largely the basis -- the source -- for so much of "Lee scholarship".   These guys were just making shit up, frankly.   And "scholars" that came after, just repeated the myths. 

In fact, says Lee's supposed "scholarly" biographer, Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee "had no faults to probe".  Beloved by his slaves, who he freed, Lee is a man now AT THE RIGHT HAND OF CHRIST HIS LORD.  No, Lee was not beloved, and no, Lee did not free his slaves, and no, Lee was not against slavery.


Historian Alan Nolan said 20 years ago, essentially,  we need to "start over" about Lee, because what we claim about Lee was not based on scholarship.

Nolan  had no clue how correct he was......  Nolan then "Considered"  Lee -- but did not have Lee's slave ledgers, and dirty letters.    Nolan had no idea the "super biographer" Douglas Southall Freeman lied his ass off (yes, he did, see below).

Nolan had no idea of Lee's dirty letters, or slave ledgers.  Nolan did not know about Lee's  bounty payments, evidence of tortures and rapes. Even without those documents, Nolan posited that the "scholarship" about Lee was essentially not scholarship at all, but idolatry, though he did not use the word.  

In the world of "Lee scholarship"  no accolade was too goofy to praise Lee.   The best Christian, now seated at the right hand of Christ,  caring only for lost souls, saving sparrows from fires, freeing his wife's slaves -- all nonsense.
When you hear of people like Eisenhower praising Robert E Lee, this is the kind of nonsense they were fed.  They were not told about Lee's tortures or bounty hunters, or using slaves to dig trenches.  

They were not told he ran from Richmond on the false rumor of a breech in the slave built earth works -- and that Lee left the people of Richmond to their fate.  Lee even ordered warehouses burned -- certain the Union trooop would soon be there.  Instead, no Union troops showed up --until the mayor of Richmond rode out and ASKED THE UNION SOLDIERS to come help put the fires out.

That's not history, it's not even close. In fact, it's bullshit. 


No, not Lee's slave ledgers.
Pryor avoids even calling  Lee's slave ledgers by their common name. 

Still, Pryor chose carefully -- this picture, of a Lee drawing, she deemed more important to show than his own handwritten record of payments for slave girls, and bounty hunters.   Does this Lee drawing really show you anything?

No. Of course it doesn't show you anything.



A book Lee quoted from.

 These slave ledgers would be vastly important, if Lee had never taken part in the war, they are so detailed and precise.