Monday, September 10, 2012

Why did Lee pay 34 times as much money to capture slave girls, than slave men? Could they pick 34 times as much cotton?

Pryor reveals many interesting facts about Lee, in as gentle a way possible, -- like Lee paid much more for female slaves.


Not Lee's slave ledger. 

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

Pryor is very careful how she relates that, and other facts, which essentially show that "Lee Scholarship" till now was bullshit. Yes, bullshit.

But she doesn't dare call it bullshit.

  More about that later..


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

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

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

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


Repeating myths
don't make them true 


The Lee Myth
The Lee papers

Carefully reveals what others never 
dared mention, before.

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


And after the Civil War, reporters found witnesses to this and other tortures, who confirmed it.

Hold on to your hats.  Turns out much of what we learned about Lee, and the South idea of honor, might be just bullshit.

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.

Lee's own handwritten records show that "historians" were not only repeating bullshit, they often added another layer of adoration on to a man who regularly had slaves tortured (torture is the right word, fuck off if you don't like it) and bragged that pain was "necessary for their instruction."


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

She studied them - her book is about them.   

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

SHe didn't have a few notes -- she had his SLAVE LEDGERS.  And apparently he kept very detailed records.

We want the candid truth -- the women Lee tortured, the children he sold, the soldiers he had killed, deserve the truth.

150 years of bullshit is enough.

Why not show his slave ledgers? He was proud of them, he insisted he did no wrong, only what Christ commanded.  Supposedly is aim in life was "to lead men to Christ".

That's how he is taught -- let's see if that's the truth. His slave ledgers and dirty letters show a different story entirely.   


Other than a video of Lee as he walked around the slave barns and chose which girls he would sell, Lee's slave ledgers and dirty letters would reveal about as much as any human would want to know about another.

Don't worry, you can read Pryor's book, and not lose your cult worship of Lee. She adores Lee, and she worked for, and with, the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society. 

Her source -- Lee's papers. Remember that, she had in her hands, and allowed to study at length, Lee's slave ledgers, sexually explicit letters, correspondence with bounty hunters, and things you never dreamed of.

For a man who didn't  even have slaves, and was "violently against slavery" and thought slavery was an "evil"  - its sure funny  how  he focused on making a profit from slavery for over a decade, hired bounty hunters to chase slaves -- and others -- for months on end.

The myth is taught as fact. But that myth won't last, especially if the Lee family release the slave ledgers.

They let one person see them -- in 150 years.  She wrote a book, a very artful book, wherein she did reveal, carefully, what she could.  But read her book and words very carefully.  

Her facts -- presented in slick ways, even Orwellian double speak, at times -- are quite unlike anything we have heard before.

And her information comes from Lee's own handwritten letters, or letters written to him, saved by  him. She doesn't get this information from a duck, from someone trying to make Lee look bad.

These papers are Lee's own papers. He wrote them, read them, responded to them. He filled out the slave ledgers.

Pryor won't even candidly call the slave ledgers by what they are -- she calls them "monthly account book".  If she wrote "Lee's slave ledgers"  she probably would have been escorted off the grounds by Virginia police. And I'm not kidding, she probably would have been.

If you think Lee's torture of slave girls,  his dirty letters, and his purchase of other women (Lee bought other women that were not slaves -- yes he did) is something they wanted announced bluntly, you don't know anything about human nature.

The most perverse of myths -- that Lee's slaves loved him "most of all" according to Douglas Southall Freeman.   Freeman wrote an "epic" biography of Lee, that simply blew the doors off everyone else's.

Lee is  now seated at the right hand of Christ, and suffered unto himself the agony of the South.  Lee not only had "no faults to probe"  -- according to Freeman's meticulous, and fraudulent book, Lee was the most chaste, the most kind, the most everything -- even the most tidy.

That's some crazy shit right there -- but that kind of crazy bullshit, quite the opposite of what's in Lee's actual slave ledgers and dirty letters (Lee wrote sexually explicit letters, lots of them, and for decades,  and not to his wife, but to others.



   Hold on to your hats, Lee worshipers.  You weren't at Arlington,  nor was anyone you know. But Lee was -- and he wrote it all down.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Glad to report, Pryor's car is fine.  

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

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

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

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

Really.  She wrote that. 

You have no clue on that page, that the discipline Pryor is speaking about, is brutal and unrelenting -- not only physical torture, but psychological and vile.  It seems absurd to relate -- sophistry, over the top nonsense even -- but according to overlapping newsapers at the time, Lee taunted slaves before torture, and had several tortures applied in sequence.

Yes, Lee.

Not only that, Lee was not above terrorizing slave women with implied -- or even overt -- threats to sell their children.   We are not told of this now, but slave women were forced into all kinds of things (rape, sexual favors, prostitution) by white owners, not only by threats to torture the woman, but to take their children away, and abuse them.

But not Lee, right? No no no,  not Lee, he was one of the good guys.

Oh really?

Not according to facts presented at the time, and reflected, if not validated, by Lee's own letters, and slave ledgers.

But Pryor does not stop there, with the excuse of poor cross cultural communication skills. Pryor writes Lee had "every right" to "discipline" the girls.   They had "tested Lee".

Not just tested Lee -- but "immediately tested Lee". Kinda makes you wanna cry, poor Lee, they tested him - immediately.  You only find out later, the "test"  was  -- they tried to escape.

In fact, Lee's biggest problem with slaves?  They kept trying to escape. Lee had ongoing and intense relationship with bounty hunters, as you will see.

Pryor had those letters.

Gee -- for a guy who didn't HAVE slaves, and was against slavery, he sure acted oddly buying more slaves from bounty hunters (he did that too) and sending bounty hunters out for months, as he did.

On thing for sure -- the myth about Lee being against slavery, not having slaves, only managing his wife's slaves,  is based on repeated nonsense, not on the facts.

Lee's own handwritten slave ledgers, his own letters to and from bounty hunters, either confirm or supply the proof about what he actually did - who he bought, who he sold, who  he paid to capture who.

Lee should have burned his slave ledgers, bounty hunter and personal sexually explicit letters. He probably would have, if he had the choice.  


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about some boooshit  history.

Learn facts -- not myths.





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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Pryor tells us -- in a very clever way  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Lee had girls tortured.

Lee screamed at girls as he had them toturtured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You will figure it out -- take your time.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Her book is laudatory, if not adorational, in parts. But that is a serious step down -- other biographies had Lee, really, not only seated near God in Heaven, but claimed Lee "had no faults to probe".

In fact, books about Lee -- such best sellers from 1880's on -- actually competed to adore him more than the next hustler "biographer".   Much of what passes for "scholarship" today -- many of the supposed Lee quotes, for example, came from those goofy books. 

Shame on the scholars of the last two generations, who simply accepted the bullshit, and often added their own layer of bullshit.   They often cited those earlier books of bullshit.

And yes-- bullshit is common in history, as it turns out.

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

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

As you will see from Lee's slave ledgers and dirty letters, Freeman was a fucking lunatic and liar.  Lee's slaves hated him so much, they risked their lives to escape.  And they tried to escape for a very good reason.  Women tried to escape because of the rapes, and Lee took their children away, or took them away from their children.

Yes, he did.

Oh, and Lee tortured slaves, including slave girls, and by the facts Pryor found, he was very much "into" slave torture, especially the girls.

Sorry -- slavery is like that.  Any bullshit to the contrary, is bullshit.


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

Douglas Southall Freeman actually has four columns of noble human traits, in his index, and then proves Lee is the MOST of each one.  

The most tidy -yes, even the most tidy. The most considerate.  The most prayerful.   He told us Lee had no faults to probe -- at all. Zero.

And not only no faults, but every single good attribute, Lee had, more than anyone -- ever.

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

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

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

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

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

Getting off horse in battle for extended silent prayer

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

What if "historians"  just repeated the bullshit?

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




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

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

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


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

And they says a lot about Lee.  

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

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

Is there nothing "historians" can not get wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee family got rich.

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


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

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

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

Common ploy. 

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

But she is writing about Lee.   

"Truth is amazing - history is unreliable"

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

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

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


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

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

And no, they didn't care. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


Lee's Cash Crop 

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

Do you know? Hell no, no one told you

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

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

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

Human. Flesh. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She was damn clever. 


Orwellian double speak. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Lee taunted the girl before her torture.

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

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

See why she had to use Orwellian double speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Would you tell folks about it?  Hell no.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Guess what -- that's how slavery was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you know that, or not?  Hell no.

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

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

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

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

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

Lee with and without Orwellian double speak.  

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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



Is this news to you?


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Really, he did. 

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

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

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


What do you do with white looking slaves?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he did.  Read her book closely.

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



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

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

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

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

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

Lee wrote them.   Remember that. 

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

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

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


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



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

We were told he didn't even own slaves.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert E Lee knew.

Pryor won't tell us what he did with the white looking girls, other than one reference about bounty hunters looking for 12 slaves, one of which was  mulatto.  

Clever, right?  She told you, if you read very closely. Over 50%, a stunningly high  percentage.  And Lee DID own his own slaves, too, he did not just "manage" his wife's.    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Lord chil' dats wuz common".

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Do we teach such things in school? Hell no. 

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

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

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


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

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

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

Not just repeated, but cited as fact!  

It's about that simple -- books glorifying Lee sold very well.  No one even bothered to write books showing Lee's tortures, his cowardice, the desertion of his men.   If you just ignore all his failings, and write lunatic made up stories, of course Lee is going to quickly ascend to Christ like levels. 

Christ like levels is EXACTLY where Lee "biographers" claim he is!  You can't outdo these liars. You can't make up more goofy stories.  

That particular book is sold even today -- and many such books about Lee, never mention the word slave, but page after page of adorational (yes we know adorational is not a word) bullshit.   


Pryor refuses to characterize the "account books"  as slave ledgers.  But that is what they were -- monthly account books, of his slaves. Purchases, sales, rentals (Lee rented slaves out) and discipline.