Monday, September 10, 2012

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

yeah this is a blog.

Elizabeth Pryor carefully reveals what others never 
dared mention, before. Like Lee's torture of slave girls, too small for his regular overseer to whip

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

The family worked with the Virginia Historical Society,m to pick Pryor.

They could have chosen anyone --they could have just given copies of his slave ledgers and dirty letters to everyone, but that's not ever going to happen.

There were thousands of  historians were eager for 100 years to get their hands on those trunks full of Lee papers. Pryor, as far as we know, is the first, and still only, human being allow to study them, at length.

They chose Pryor, a very talented diplomat, and Lee devotee, well.

Of all the ways to tell you things, Pryor each time, chose the road most travelled -- she was clever about it.

Yeah yeah, you saw the movies about Lee, you are told he hated slavery, and his slaves loved him.  Your history teacher emphatically told you Lee "hated" slavery.

There are even actors going around, putting on community theater productions, where they play Lee, and repeat hundreds of things he supposedly said -- but did not say.

As you will  see, the "Lee quote machine" didn't start till after he died, and writers could sell hundres, thousands, of books, by adoration of Southern leaders.  Many of the "Lee quotes" were unknown till those authors made them up.

See below. 



Elizabeth Pryor, Lee devotee and trusted friend of the Lee family, got access to Lee's slave ledgers, letters to and from his bounty hunters, and sexually explicit letters too and from Lee.

Yes Yes, slave ledgers. Yes, bounty hunters.  Yes, sexually explicit letters -- to numerous women, for years.

Do not worry, Lee adoration society members.  Pryor was very careful how she related the information, you will in no way be shocked by her book.  Pryor is (was, she died recently in car accident) a diplomat, and relayed her amazing facts in very clever ways.

We show you what she found, and how she "cleverly" placed them in her book "Reading the Man".



Twenty five years ago, Alan Nolan wrote, that we should start over about Lee -- what information we had was not scholarship, but idolatry,( not his word).

That was before Ms Pryor came across Lee's amazing letters and slave ledgers. (Yes, slave ledgers).


Sadly Elizabeth  Pryor died April 1, 2015 in a car accident, near her  home.   RIP 

Pryor is probably the only person on earth that  could tell the name of the girl Lee paid the highest price for, and what he wrote about her, to his slave ledgers.

She could tell us the name, and a lot more -- like what Lee wrote about her specifically, and how many other girls hdid he pay this particular bounty hunter, for.

A better book would be "Lee's Bounty Hunters"  because Lee dealt with bounty hunters for years, wrote letters to, and from them, and bought women from them (really) that they found in the North that were not slaves, until Lee got hold of them.


Lee's torture of, and purchase of, slave girls might sound stunning today, especially since we are told such a drastically different narrative.

But it was no surprise at the time.  In fact, three newspapers before the Civil War reported on Lee's torture of slave girls, not because it was "Lee" -- he was not famous then.


The "Lee tortures" made the papers because the young girl Lee had tortured (torture is the right word, we won't use euphemisms here )  was so young, his regular overeer refused to whip her.   More about that slave girl, and his bounty hunters, before.

You only know what you are told. If you are only told stories -- true or  not - -about Lee saving a baby sparrow, Lee freeing his slaves (fales)  Lee's slave's love for him (false) you will believe that. How else could you not?

Short of a video of Lee walking around a slave auction, and his behavior in the slave barn, Lee's own letters and slave ledgers would show everything we could know, now.


But Pryor isn't showing us the actual slave ledgers. Instead, she presents a "Portrait"  of Lee from his letters and ledgers.  Her subtitle has the word "Portrait" in it.  She wasted no time being precise, and purposely ambiguous. 

Hint -- Pryor  picked that word "Portrait" carefully, like she chose all her words. Pryor is an artful wordsmith. She had to be. 


Pryor will use words like horror, rape, whipping post.  She will tell us about white looking slaves at Arlington, but you can easily read her book and miss all such words, because her narrative is as smooth as a baby's butt.  She saves those words for certain paragraphs, and while correct enough, they are not clear enough.

  God "knew and intended" slaves to feel "painful discipline".  Pain, wrote Lee, was "necessary for their instruction.  

White looking slave girls? Yes, Lee owned some.  Pryor won't say how many, but she did mention over 50% of Lee's slaves were mulatto.

She also tried to casually mention that "whites were increasingly enslaving other whites."   And while Pryor did not say Lee was increasingly enslave whites, the book is about her, his slave ledgers and letters are what she used for most of her information.

Lee did not whip the slave girl himself -- but he ordered her whipped,even after his regular overseer refused to whip her.

Think of that -- think real hard.  First, that he ordered the slave girl tortured -- even after his regular overseer refused.  

According to the best selling Southern book, in the 1850s -- "SLAVERY ORDAINED BY GOD"  - and Lee almost certainly owned a copy, because much of what he writes, seems to come from that book,  In "Pastor Ross's"  book, he essentially says slaves must obey their master, no matter what the order.   Gold Himself  put the slave in the hands of the master -- a sentiment Lee concured with in writing, by the way.   

If the slave owner was too cruel, too sadistic, too whatever, God will deal with that slave master in the after life.

God knew and intended for masters to have salves -- and use pain to discipline them.,

No, this is not taken out of context, at all.   Slaves were supposed to please and obey their master, and that way, God would "civilize" the slave, and bestow upon the master tender affection for the slave.

Just obey, bitch, is a shorter way to say that.

 Slave owners were sorta "Gods" on earth, to slaves, and could torture, sell, rape, and do almost anything to them, but kill them outright. Lee was no exception, in fact Pryor carefully admits Lee was worse than most slave owners, and that his slaves said Lee was "the worst man we ever saw".

√   Lee's father had a slave girl hung for knocking down a white man.   No one even bothered to record why she knocked him down, Lee had her  hung.  She was 15 years old. 

We wish Pryor had explained that much more, and shown the letters, but that is not her style, quite the reverse.

Pryor does mention things, here and there, never in one place, but so interesting anyway.

Pryor relates Lee  had seven slaves escape at one time -- but and one was light skinned.   How light? What was her name?  Did Lee's hunters capture her, or  not?

Was that the one girl newspapers reported about, at the time, that Lee had tortured?

Pryor didn't say --but at least she mentioned enough details, we know Lee had slave girls tortured, and had regular and significant contact with, and business with, bounty hunters.

No one told us that before -- ever. Hint or otherwise.

Pryor likely  could have told us the total number, the names, the prices paid, which were cought, which were  not.

Pryor didn't want to be -- she dared not to be -- too specific.

One reader commented about Pryor  "Wow, she certain did not pull punches".   Are you kidding?  She certainly never punched.    Telling the candid truth would have been a punch.

How would anyone know which girls were white looking, what prices Lee got for which slave at auction --  yes he used slave auctions, Pryor mentioned a slave male he sent to slave auction.

Did he use slave auctions more?   Yes, almost certainly. 

Why not make that clear?

Pryor she doesn't want to shock you.     




True to form, Pryor will not use the term "slave ledger". She calls them, and that briefly, "monthly account books."

Nor does she use the term "dirty letters".

 Pryor is a diplomat, not a muckraker; her goal is not to pull Lee down from his pedestal, rather, to keep him on it.


 Pryor's problem --she had Lee's slave ledgers in her hands, and his letters to bounty hunters, letters to various women, from various women.

And she presumably wanted to tell truth, about what she found. Hard thing to do, when what Lee wrote down, was quite different than the myth about him.

She had, in Lee's own handwriting, absolute proof of what Lee did with certain slave girls, what Lee did with which slave, on which day.

She could see where from, and how much, Lee bought slaves. Yes, he bought them --he paid money to other men, for the flesh of women and children. He accepted money, for the flesh of women and children.

That's how Lee made money -- that's how every plantation made money.  They did not raise vegetables.  Their product was human flesh -- yes, it was. Not sorta, not kinda, not in  way, that's what it was.

Lee's father was a slaver -- he bought and sold slaves. That was how you got rich, that was how you got status, in those days, in those areas.

Why do we pretend otherwise? 

 She never explained the source of Lee's income candidly. She mentioned it, in that clever diplomatic way she had, but she did not make it clear. He rented slaves out, and sold some at auctions. 

She could have told us much, much more, in amazing detail. He had the slave ledgers and letters, in her hands.

She had a problem. How the hell was she going to say it?




 Pryor's careful book is her answer, to her problem. She would write "carefully" to the point of absurdity, depending on the horror she found.

She calls her book  "Portrait" - a carefully painted, and flattering as possible, picture. She started the careful prose, with her title. And, she knew it. 

They chose wisely,  the Lee family did. 

 When you see how wonderful she was about language (Pryor would call rapes "dalliances" at one point, only later refer to the forcible rapes)  you will give Pryor the credit she deserves.

You try it -- you find evidence of rapes, common rapes, violent rapes, tortures, bounty hunters, dirty letters.  How would you write about a man that gave you that evidence, in writing?   Especially if your goal was to flatter Lee as much as possible?

You would have to do it, much like she did.



By the way -- Lee owned white looking slave girls. He had light skinned slave girls, and they were raped (yes, raped, see below). Their children were lighter skinned.

This might sound absurd -- rapes, common? No way -- actually way.  And Pryor tells us that, see how carefully, below. Rape was common, at Arlington.

Rape was common, it seems, at many places, if you just go by the the lighter and lighter skin of the slave babies.

Lee's slaves were stunningly light skinned -- at least Pryor says Lee's percentage of mulatto skinned slaves was drastically higher than normal -- over half. Over half of Lee's slaves were mulatto, and he had some slaves that could pass for white. 

Pryor calls it "a horror". Slavery and rape and torture were not horrors -- as you will see. But white looking slaves?

She used a different tone entirely for those pages, as if she was pissed off. Whites, she wrote, were increasingly enslaving other whites.  

She died the other day, sad to say. Elizabeth Pryor was killed in a car accident.  So there is now, no one alive who actually studied those letters and slave ledgers, no one who could be candid about it.


Not that writing sexually explicit letters is a  horror, but Pryor had to be surprised to find, Lee wrote sexually explicit letters, for decades.

To various women. 

She won't show any such letters, but does tell us he wrote them for decades, and to various women?

He boasted about sex tricks in one, and boasted in another about his son's sexual abilities.  Is that it?   How about showing is, or giving us a number?

Pryor was never clear .  She could have been, but she never was.  And that's fine.



More serious -- at least to the slaves, Lee paid bounty hunters - often. He had girls chased for months, and was there to "greet them" upon their return, and promptly had them tortured (tortured is the right word, get over it, we won't mince words here).

Lee had "nothing but contempt" for his slaves by the way, and the feeling was mutual.

In fact, Pryor reports, in a rare moment, that slaves said Lee was "The worse man we ever saw".

Lee the worst man the slaves ever saw -- worse than the bounty hunters, worse than the over seer who whipped them?


Pryor could have given us context, for that "Worst man we ever saw"  thing.  

Did someone write down "Lee is worst man we ever saw"   and nothing else?   Why  not give the full letter.  Was Lee bragging about this in one of his letters?

Was Lee's wife telling him, the slaves say you are the worst man they ever saw?

WTF is the context?  She doesn't say. She could, she should have, but at least she said that much.

Not candid -- but at least it's there.



Lee's father had a slave girl hung, for knocking down a white man, and no one even bothered to record why she knocked him down. She did, Lee's father was the judge, and he ordered her to be  hung by the neck until dead.

Did Lee know that? Hell yes, he knew.

Did  Pryor know that? Hell yes, she knew.

Did Lee ever have a slave girl -- or man -- hung?  Not that Pryor tells us, but she does tell us the whip was Lee's prefered method of torture (torture is the right word, Pryor won't use it, we do, cause it's the right word).

Lee had to pay a near by bounty hunter to have her whipped. And Lee used other tortures on that girl, too.

That was in newspapers at the time.

Guess who found confirmation of those payments, to those men, on dates corresponding with the newspaper reports?

Pryor found confirmation.

Where was that confirmation?

In Lee's own hand written slave ledgers.

See now, what her problem was?  How to tell, without telling too explicitly.


Thousands of letters from and too Lee -- including letters to and from his bounty hunters.  Including material that showed what prices he paid bounty hunters, for which girls. And his slave ledgers.  In his own handwriting.  


When are rapes "Dalliances" ?

For Pryor, rapes are dalliances in the front of her book. 
That's how she describes pregnancies of slave girls, who gave birth to light skinned babies.  She calls those  "dalliances". 

Later, though,   she adds a few more words, references obliquely a few more facts, and comes up with "Rapes were common,"   and forced.

Amazing progression, that. Dalliances to "rapes were common".

They chose Pryor well, a diplomat, she knew how to say things that were astonishing, in a very casual and inoffensive way.

How does she tell us they were common? By quoting a slave, in ebonics. No where else does she use that technique --"Lord child, dats wuz common" -- speaking of rapes.

How do we know they were force rapes -- not just sex with a slave, which by definition is rape?   She writes these words --not in ebonics, "Coercion was used in those situations." 


There are 1000 ways to tell you anything, Pryor told you in the most careful, unremarkable way.

Pryor did tell you, about what she found, sorta kinda. 
 "Those situations"  are rapes.   And "Coercion was used in those situations"  means forcible.

You almost need to note at the top of each page -- "this information came from Lee's own slave ledgers, letters, and other documents, most if it in his own handwriting."

Pryor's basic trick, throughout the book, is to be vague about the person she is actually talking about.  For example, the pages about "white looking slaves"  - Lee's name does not appear.

But she is writing about LEE's slaves -- he had the white looking slave girl, he had hunters chase very light skinned slave girls.  She could have made that clear, of course.

Pryor makes nothing clear that is  horrible, about Lee.

She knows when to be clear, and when not to be. She was not a diplomat for  nothing.

 We can't know, of course, what material Pryor was referring to on each sentence.  But she got her information FROM LEE -- from his papers.   When she writes about "whites enslaving other whites,"  she was talking about slavery at Arlington.

Clearly Pryor would rather not mention such vile things at all.  She was not out to  blow the Lee name off the schools, off the streets, off the state holidays.  

She seemed torn to reveal as much as she did.


Do you think Lee, or the people around him, wrote "Dear General, your son raped that new slave girl today, and coercion  was used in that situation".

No, that would not be the language. No one wrote "coercion was used" . Pryor had to dream that up, on her own.


We have no idea what actually was in his papers, we have to take Pryor's spin on it.  Still, she got in information, no one else dared, spin or no.



Fred and Ginger had a "dalliance"
See the difference?



You saw the posters.  You heard the quotes, about Lee against slavery.  (Hilarious when you see his full letters and record of tortures).

150 years of bullshit is enough. 

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



There are no videos of Lee, but the myth is alive an well, as if we had those videos. In movies, Lee is shown as brave, honorable, slow spoken, thoughtful.


Honorable men do not taunt girls before he has them tortured-- as Lee did, you will see. Nor does he scream at them during their torture, as Lee did, according to verified witnesses.

Jefferson Davis said all cruel men are cowards.  He should know -- but that describes Lee well.  He was exceedingly cruel.  No, he was not whipping the slaves reluctantly, he was there, he taunted her before her torture, and screamed at her during her torture, according to witnesses.

If you go by Lee's actual actions, he was a brute dressed up for church.  He was not alone, it's human nature, in fact, it's required you justify your cruelty somehow.  One you justify your cruelty, it's hard telling what you will do. 

Plus, if you let your slaves escape, and did nothing, pretty soon, you had no slaves.  Fear and pain is how you got slaves, how you kept them.   Large slave plantations -- like Lee had -- made examples of those who dared disobey. They had to.  And they did. 

If you were in Lee's shoes, grew up as he did, had the same chances to get fame, rich, powerful, with unlimited access to slave girls (yes, he liked slave girls, he paid a lot of money for them) -- you would probably do what he did.

Not only payments to those exact men, but other written evidence  -- his letters to and from bounty hunters. 

And by the way -- Lee copied much of that prose, in his letter to his wife, from a book at the time.  Yes, he stole that language, because it was that smooth, he could not outdo it, so he just plagiarized it.  Pryor didn't catch that -- I did.   Lee's own letter to his wife -- if he wrote it at all -- was largely the exact words Daniel Webster, written in one of his books, what Lee would have most certainly owned.

Why haven't  historians told you that?

Hell, historians have not told you much candid truth about Lee. ______________________________________

Lee with and without Orwellian double speak.  

 Slave owners needed it -- Jefferson Davis may be the champion Orwellian of all time, when he defined liberty as the right to own slaves.

Lee comes close -- he called slavery a "religious liberty"  that the nation was founded on.    Why such goofy Orwellian language?


Pryor is the opposite of candid, but she did work with the Lee family, and the Virginia Historical Society, which essentially exists (really) to praise Robert E Lee.

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

Or that Lee only chose this way of torture, because of his "poor cross cultural communication skills".

I love that little bit of cleverness "cross cultural communication skills". Pryor has stupid people nodding their head,  thinking, yeah, that's all this was, Lee had poor cross cultural communication skills.

She does not make it clear how extreme his tortures were -- how common.  And to the small extent she admits he had slaves tortured, she  excuses Lee because of his  "cross cultural" communication skills.

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

Historians have known about those newspapers reporting the tortures of the young girls,  they never told you.

The very few that even referred to them at all,do so in a dismissive way, because one of the three said Lee himself did the whipping, the other two said he had the girl that was too young, whipped by someone else.

That's right, if you can find ANY historian telling you about Lee's tortures that appeared in the three different newspapers, they dismiss them as incredible because they differed -- rather slightly -- about whether Lee held the whip or not.

So what?   The reporters were not there, they repeated what they heard.  Very common for details like that to be different  -- but all three reports showed his torture, and the same basic story. 

 Essentially, all three accounts are the same. It would be extremely odd if they were all exactly alike!!

And of course the "historians" who dismiss the reports know that. In fact, this paragraph is longer than anything they ever wrote on the subject.  

Those  newspaper reports also showed OTHER tortures Lee used on the girl, and how he taunted her before the torture. He did not just have her whipped, afterwards, he had salt poured in her wounds.

Witnesses said he did that for more pain -- he did not want to so disfigure her,  we assume, that he could not sell her. Yes, he had slaves sold. This girl was a lighter skinned girl, and light skinned girls brought higher prices- - yes they did.

It could be that Lee used the salt torture, on her, to give her maximium  pain, but not lose much on her, when he sold her.

And yes, slave owners would think of things like that -- Lee was very much trying to make a profit on his slaves, including the girls. 

Remember, the basic information confirming Lee's torture is IN LEE'S OWN HANDWRITING.

Yes, yes, we wish Pryor had shown it.  But the way Pryor writes, it's likely she had no choice but to say something about it, it had to be very clear in papers she held, for her to validate it, in her book, which she did.

If Pryor had done only that,  report Lee's own confirmation of  his own tortures --  it would be amazing, indeed.   But she found  much more....


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


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

What do you think informs readers more -- a picture of a page of Lee's prices?  A letter to a bounty hunter for payment of a women they found in the North?

Or a pump drawing?

Pryor put in  the picture of Lee's pump.

Get your  head around that.  She sits there, literally, with letters about prices Lee paid for women his hunters caught in the North -- some were never slaves until Lee bought them from kidnappers.

Yes, she knows that. By what does she put in her book?

A picture of his slave girls?  A picture of his slave ledgers?

A picture of what?  HIS PUMP DRAWING.


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

Lee had to write something -- a  payment to someone to install it, an order for someone to install it, she got that information somewhere.

How will she handle that information?

By calling it -- fraudulently - a silent witness.   We know there was much screaming and crying and yelling done by that "silent"  whipping post.

Do you think Pryor wrote that word "silent" for no reason?


  I've had people insist the book never mentioned Lee had slaves whipped, because the prose is so careful, like the "silent witness" trick, and overall flattering narrative.


You can read that book and not notice things like torture, because Pryor's narrative is so clever.

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

She probably begged to live, she probably died kicking, while Lee  Sr watched.  Did Lee Jr watch?

Who the hell knows. 

 But Lee's father was a brute too, and a drunk, and a swindler.   Lee's life was essentially his effort to regain the status his father lost.

And Pryor knows that, too.


Another Pryor trick -- Orwellian use of the word "planter".  Lee, she tells us, always wanted to be a "planter".

She means Lee wanted to own slaves, a lot of slaves.  And have a big ass house and be rich.

The way Pryor chose her words, you don't have a clue -- nor are you supposed to get a clue from her - that Lee wanted to have a big plantation, the money, power, and status that brought.

Lee's "plantation" did NOT sell veggies.  He sold and rented out, human beings.  That is not kinda true, that is what he did, and how he got income.

Why  do historians insist on this Orwellian bullshit, especially about Lee?  He married a rather homely woman to get this plantation, by the way.


Lee, in his famous letter, also bluntly claimed slavery was a "religious liberty"  and that slaves were lucky to be slaves.   

Mostly, Lee told his wife (as many slave owners did) that we should not question GOD.  God intended slavery, God will end it, in "His time".  

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

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

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

Yeah, Lee.  That guy. 

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


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

Lee and ALL HIS OFFICERS got off their horses, DURING BATTLE and had a nice long silent prayer as bombs blew up around him.

The "historian" that wrote that, by the way, is honored even now -- there are awards in his name, given to other "historians" who make up bullshit about Lee.

Really. That is how insane the "history" is about Lee.  They actually give awards to people who make up more goofy stuff, than the next guy.


 Pryor begins her book all lovey dovey.   Lee as Richard the Lionhearted, Lee being adored by his children, and writing them lovely letters extolling them to virtue. 

 Pryor actually blames slave girls for trying to escape!    Lee had "every right" to protect his "property".   Un real, but she wrote that.




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

She actually wrote that.

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

Rape. At Arlington. Common. 

No, she wont show those papers. In fact, on the pages about rape, she does  not put Lee's name. You could easily assume (the assumption she wants you to make) that this was NOT Lee himself, but other guys. 

Pryor is not candid about that, she speaks in terms of families. Families? What a joke, black men could not even sleep in the same barn as women.  In some states it was ILLEGAL to tell a slave child who the father was, if anyone knew.

Likely as not, at Arlington, the father was a white man.  And possibly one of the Lee men fathered -- who knew? It was not like they had a dating relationship and anyone knew which man impregnated which slave girl.

While Pryor uses the word dalliance early, we know that the actual rapes, and Pryor does admit and use the word rape,  were night time plunder of the women's shacks at night, the white  man literally picking whatever woman he wanted.  Whatever age.  Whatever he wanted. 

If you are going to have girls tortured, and sell children, and buy women from bounty hunters-- all which Lee did -- what the hell would he not do?


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


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

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

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


We always knew, and historians admitted, Lee had his soldiers capture free women (and men) in the North during the Civil War. Lee  had those souls taken South and sold as slaves.   

Lee is therefore the only person in US history to have civilians captured in war, taken to another country (as he thought)  and sold into slavery.

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

Yes, Lee had his hunters bring him free people from the North, that had the horrible luck, of being caught by Lee's men.

Really.   And Pryor knew it. 


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

How do we know Lee bought women his hunters kidnapped in the North?  Pryor's word "others". 

Lee paid his hunters, she writes, for the capture of escaped slaves, "and others".

Who the hell could others be? Other ducks? Other potatoes?  No, others has to be "other" than his escaped slave girls.   Someone else,  were "others"



Not Lee's slave ledger. 


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


Repeating myths
don't make them true 


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


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

She studied them - her book is about them.   

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Really, he did. 

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

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