REPEATING MYTHS DO NOT MAKE THEM TRUE
Lee wrote it down.
In his slave ledgers.
In his letters to lovers.
In his letters to bounty hunters.
Don't believe that shit about Lee as religious -- he wrote many dirty letters, to various women.
But to his wife, he wrote religious excuses for the tortures and beatings -- Lee took part in the tortures, screaming at slave girls as they were tortured.
All of it -- every iota of torture, rape, slavery, was justified by Lee, and others, by the bible. And as you will see -- they did not believe any of the crap. It was always an excuse, as their own actions show.
MEN NEED EXCUSES
LEE AND OTHERS ALWAYS USED RELIGION
Men are the only animal that needs excuses to justify torture, killings, and depravity. Ironically enough, religion is the biggest excuse -- followed by patriotism
Lee prefered religion -- for the simple reason, it worked.
Don't blame them, they said, in essence. God ordained slavery -- and the torture of slaves. Lee even wrote that God intended and knew that pain was necessary for instruction of slaves -- and he was a particularly cruel torturer, as you will see.
How do we know they did not really believe that shit?
Lee, and many others, said God ordained slavery and the punishment of slaves. Did they believe it?
No. Because the moment they lost the Civil War, they didn't bring up that excuse again. Not even in private letters.
Did God change? Did the bible change? That's what they said before -- so what changed? They captured women, had them tortured, sold children -- at all times claiming it was the will of God.
So why not continue that will of God?
Not even in private, not in speeches, did they later claim God ordained slavery and torture -- they just walked away from that bullshit, because they knew it was bullshit the whole time.
No one said they had to believe in a different God. The "God of Slavery" was very much a real God -- at least in how the Southern leaders, including Lee, would use it in letters and speeches. No one said they couldn't preach the God of slavery, no one said they couldn't complain that their religious rights were taken away because now they could not torture slaves or sell children.
Interesting as hell. One day, their entire lives are based on this God they claimed to obey -- to enslave -- but once Lee surrenders, no more mention of that GOD.
One day they are tying up women to whip-- because God ordained it -- and the next day, after surrender, they don't know what the hell to say about that God of slavery they boasted of before (yes, they boasted of a God of slavery).
So why did that all change, why after the surrender, did they not say "We should be able to enslave for God, but now it's against the law". They did not say that.
They did still insist blacks were inferior -- not real human beings, all that. But never again did any of the Confederate leaders, including Lee, claim religious persecution because they could not torture and enslave.
So it was always an excuse. Never a reason. The God of slavery was the best excuse, because their women bought into that stupid crap -- yes they did. Lee and others had to fool the women, and make it seem like God ordained slavery. So they did. Lee was not special in that, at all, but he was very good at fooling his rather stupid wife, while he bought and sold women, and had them whipped. Yes, he did.
His own records show he did. Deal with it.
Facts are stubborn things -- and so are myths. Maybe if Lee's family had thrown away the slave ledgers, his "dirty" letters (sexually explicit letters, to various women, for decades), his bounty hunter letters, and other evidence of this tortures, the Lee myth would keep on trucking, like so much other bullshit in our history books.
In his account books for money paid for women. He wrote it down. In letters to family, he wrote it down.
No one showed you this stuff, because it's so vile, it does not even seem real, compared to what we were told.
But Lee wrote it down.
And the writings still exist.
Oh, no one told you?
ENTER LEE DEVOTEE ELIZABETH PRYOR
Lee wrote it down.
Not some neighbor. Not some reporter. Not some "Northerner" trying to make him look bad.
Lee wrote it down. He was proud of it. And his family saved it. And Elizabeth Brown Pryor studied his papers.
Pryor's book -- carefully written, as you will see -- tries to keep Lee's halo upon his head, but still get in, as gently and in Orwellian double speak as possible, what Lee did. Torture, enslave, terrorize. He had girls tied up, and whipped till blood pooled at their feet.
You probably heard Lee did not own slaves, and that he wrote against slavery. Such fucking bullshit. Read his slave ledgers, and read his full letter to his wife, about how slaves are supposed to be tortured. He uses the words "painful discipline" they must endure, but it was torture, and Lee was good at it.
Lee had his bounty hunter chase women for weeks, or months, and stunningly, paid much more for escaped women, than men.
He screamed at them during their torture.
But forget if they screamed -- as they were tortured, and if Lee screamed at them during torture, which he did.
SLavery was a vile and violent endeavor.
Idiotically, US historians, particularly about Lee and Confederate leaders, have dared not piss off Southern Confederate apologists.
Slavery was about torture -- as Lincoln wrote, and many others wrote at the time, slavery was about torture, and the window dressing to cover the terror was always religion. Always.
Lee was no exception. In fact, he was more cruel, not less cruel, than most, because Lee readily, eagerly, used psychological terror AND physical torture.
As Pryor shows --- always carefully -- Lee separated mothers from their children, as a punishment for not being submissive to him.
A MAN WHO TORTURED
Yes, Lee had slaves tortured, and in the most hideous ways. He had them chased, he paid good money to have them chased, and was there to meet them personally when the bounty hunters brought them back.
Lee taunted the slaves before torture, and yelled at them during torture.
And that's just the start. Southern crybabies would never tolerate this taught in US schools, but too bad. It happened, and Lee was proud of it.
Slave owners were cruel, and all the religious perfume they used to cover up their actions, actually made them more cruel, not less.
Rape was common -- even at Arlington. Bet you did not know that.
Pryor even - carefully -- gets in the fact, that rape was common. C O M M O N. If you don't know that men in power will rape women, you don't know much about mankind or history.
Lee was no exception. Lee's dirty letters to various women, and the fact he paid 600% more for girls of a certain age, tell a lot about Lee. Was he stupid? Did he eagerly pay so much more for young female slaves, because he liked to talk to them about philosophy?
You didn't even know Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to various women, FOR DECADES. Even after the Civil War, Lee wrote letters than included sexual references. Pryor cleverly admitted it, in a disingenuous way, but never showed us what made her say that. Pryor regularly wrote in a way to keep Lee's halo upon his head, and make it a bit vague she was talking specifically about Lee. But she was speaking about Lee.
Even at the time, abolitionist wrote books with the sorid truth, and used hundreds of examples of rape, torture, burnings, more rape.
If you don't believe slaves were raped -- and raped often, where do you think the mixed race slaves came from? Walmart? A turkey baster?
Hell no -- they raped the slaves. It was common, as Pryor admits, though she does her best to give the impression Lee was not such a man. SHe writes "There is no evidence Lee personally took part in the rapes. What does she want, a video?
There is plenty of evidence Lee justified the torture of slaves, and that he paid much higher prices for girls of a certain age -- and that rape was common at Arlington, and that Lee lied to his wife about slave women, when he tried to tell her God ordained slavery and punishment of slaves.
What would Lee NOT do? If he had slaves chased, if he turned free women into slaves (see below) if he personally screamed at slave women as he had them tortured, if he sold children (which he did) away from the mother, what the fuck do you suppose he would NOT do.
Pryor offhandedly, as if she is referring to the weather, admits Lee owned -- this is important -- the most mixed race slaves of anyone, according to Pryor, again she carefully admitted that. Over half -- over 50% -- of his slaves were mixed race, which means someone raped the mother. You can say it 1000 says, but the truth is, ever light skinned slave child, was proof the slave girl was raped.
You can't have sex with a slave. By definition, it's rape.
Just in case you suppose such rapes were actually "mutually agreed upon sex" Pryor says this. "Coercion was used in those situations"
Coercion was used?
Who? Who used "coercion"? Remember, Pryor had to see things in Lee's own papers -- letters to him, letter from him -to get the information. So what did she see in his papers, that made her write "Coercion was used in those situations".
What coercion? Beatings? Tying up? Dragging? Group rape? Rape as punishment? We don't know. Pryor is not telling us, other than "Coersion was used in those situations"
LAVERY IS LIBERTY
Lee was not so unusual, as far as justifying slaves by claiming God wanted it. In fact, Lee wrote that he was the one suffering because of slaves, they were fortunate. He was doing the work God wanted him to do.
Was he crazy? Hell no, this was common as weather -- in fact, I know of no slave owner who said "Hell yes, I can have slaves, because I can get rich and I like to rape them, too."
Making up Godly excuses is as common as farts, and far more toxic.
Lee, like almost everyone alive in the South who mattered, insisted slavery was a religious liberty, and God intended slaves feel pain. Painful discipline they "must endure" including women, and including women he bought from bounty hunters illegally.
No one told you this, so this sounds stunning. It's not stunning. What is stunning is the bullshit "history" fed to us by crybabies and liars, and not challenged in any rational way for 150 yeas.
That's why Lee's papers are so important. He wrote the damn things.
In slave ledgers, he wrote it down. In letters to bounty hunters, he wrote it down. In sexually explicit letters to various women, over decades, he wrote it down.
He wrote down payments to men who tortured his slaves for him. He wrote prices he paid, and got, for women. He wrote down payments to bounty hunters, for women they got, illegally, in the NORTH.
That's right, Lee's bounty hunter went North, illegally, and grabbed black women who lived there, very likely young women or girls, that were never slaves, until he made them so. They were not escaped slaves, at all.
He wrote that down.
LEE'S SLAVE LEDGERS
LETTERS TO BOUNTY HUNTERS
Pryor calls Lee a "planter". Not a slave trader, not a slave seller. A planter. Actually, Lee made his living on SLAVES. Renting them out, buying them, selling them. He did not have a vegetable roadside stand, or sell organic produce.
He sold SLAVES and their labor.
But we have historians who -- without any guilt whatsoever -- call Lee a planter. They do the same word games for Davis, and every Confederate leader who had slave farms -- called them "planters".
Lee didn't plant anything. He sold slaves. He bought them. He rented them out.
WONT SHOW THE LETTERS -- MONTHLY ACCOUNT BOOKS?
Not surprisingly, Pryor, nor the Lee family, will show the slave ledgers. In fact, Pryor refuses to call them "slave ledgers".
She calls them, slyly, "monthly account books" and that, only once.
Pryor got copious information from those slave ledger-- err, account books.
Pryor could, and did, get prices he paid, who he paid, and who he paid for which slave, which kidnapped woman, which escaped slave. She had it all.
She can call them pancakes, but what a stir she would have created to say anything candidly -- even the word "slave ledgers" would have stopped traffic in Virginia, and probably got her thrown out of the state.
Instead, Pryor was so artful, so careful, that she was welcomed in various Virginia circles, including by the Lee family and Journal of Southern history.
So - -" monthly account books" it was. That's kind of a pattern in her entire book, on every page. But no one else even gave us that much.
NOT ABOUT PRIVATE LIFE
None of us are surprised that myths are often confused with history. But Lee? Didn't we know all about him?
Surely LEE myth had to be the same as the real man?
NOT SO MUCH. We are fed this bullshit that slavery was wrong, but slave owners loved their slaves and treated them well. Nonsense, Lee was cruel -- if anything more cruel that others, as the facts prove.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PICTURE
OF ONE OF LEE'S VERY LIGHT SKINNED SLAVE GIRLS?
NOW YOU HAVE
Thousand ways to tell you.
There are 1000 ways to leave your lover, and even more ways to tell you about slavery, rape, torture. Not surprisingly, people used Orwellian double speak, long before George Orwell wrote about it.
One bit of Orwellian nonsense is the term "Planter". Lee and Davis are often called "planters" and Pryor does this for Lee.
He was a slaver. His cash crop was not plants, but human flesh. Human labor. He did not sell potatoes or cotton. He sold and rented out human beings.
Essentially, Lee ran a POW camp.
People were tortured if they tried to escape. That's what happens at POW camps. But Lee sold -- yes he did -- children, and sold -- yes he did -- women.
Even POW camps don't do that.
Pryor could have shown us much more, she is coy on every page.
If Pryor had relayed her information in candid way, she would have blown the lid off not just the Lee myth, but of the whole BS we call history of slavery and slave owners as honorable men.
As you will see, he was not reluctant slave owner.
Pryor would not give us the name -- or even say bluntly -- that Lee bought kidnapped women. She just says Lee bought "others". when he paid for captured slaves. Who would others be? She could have told us, she had to have seen information for her to tell us that much.
No one disputes this, at all. This is an established fact -- and was at the time. Historians and Lee biographers have known this -- but did not want to sully his reputation by telling the public in any clear way.
So too, it is an established fact three newspapers BEFORE the Civil War reported Lee had a slave girl whipped, along with other slaves. They had tried to escape. That was not newsworthy -- slaves were regularly tortured who tried to escape.
Historians did not want to relate that one in any candid way -- claiming that it was "so unlike" Lee it must not be true. Pryor found out, oh yes, it was true, because Lee himself wrote entries into his own papers (slave ledgers) confirming it for those dates.
This made the papers, however, because the regular overseer -- the man who whipped the slaves - refused to whip this girl, BECAUSE she was too young. Lee had her whpped anyway.
Remember, these were both stories already known. Not in dispute. Pryor, of course, knew both facts. Indeed, Pryor validated Lee's torture of the slave girl, the girl so young, the regular overseer refused. She found evidence in Lee's own handwritten records that verified these tortures, payments to men named, and other details from the newspaper accounts at the time
Also, historians have known about Lee's role in the capture of these blacks - it's not in dispute. It's simply not talked about in your history books.
They covered up more than Lee's comb over.
WELL EVERYONE DID THAT
IF we watched Lee at slave auctions -- yes, he went to slave auctions --for five minutes, we would know more about him than from all the "historians" who try to prop up his supposed noble character, religious devotion, and bravery. He did not have noble character -- noble men do not buy women from bounty hunters and turn them into slaves, as Lee did.
The excuse almost everyone gives, when they find out Lee tortured (yes tortured) slave girls, is "Well everyone did that" .
No they did not. Everyone did not torture slave girls. When you learn that Lee's usual overseer did whip other slaves, but refused to whip one girl, because she was too young, you will know what kind of man Lee was.
Lee had her whipped anyway. That's right, he had her whipped even though his overseer refused because she was too young.
Think everyone did that?
Amazingly, Pryor carefully got this information to us, though her artful way of softening the horrors, but she got them in.
She deserves everlasting credit for this one.
CONFIRMATION BY LEE HIMSELF
Three different newspapers at the time -- before the Civil War- - reported on usual tortures at Lee's plantation. Torture of slaves was common (it was torture, so we will call it that).
But this torture made the papers because the girl Lee had tortured, and screamed at all through her torture, was so young.
The regular overseer refused to whip her. Lee had a nearby bounty hunter whip her, and screamed at her all through her torture. That's why it made the newspapers.
Historians have long known of the newspaper stories -- but as biographer Douglas Freeman explained, it was so unlike Lee (supposedly) that he never took those newspapers seriously.
Actually, it was very much like Lee. Lee defended the torture of slaves, claiming God "knew and intended" slaves feel pain, which is "necessary for their instruction".
His father had a slave girl about that young hung to death, Lee grew up that way. Sorry if you think slavery was some nice enterprise, it was not.
Yes, Pryor should have showed us the slave ledgers and letters. She never does.
But given how extreme Pryor was to protect Lee, it's hard to imagine she would try to minimize everything he did, but then lie about what she found.
Pryor should have been more candid -- every page is drenched in euphamism and double speak, but give her credit, she gets the information in.
I'm not sure what is more amazing -- that Lee bought women from bounty hunters illegally, or how Pryor tells us.
Pryor's narrative -- the impression she tries to give -- is flattering as can be.
She starts by comparing Lee favorably to the supposed greatest men in history. The "horrors" are sprinkled in a few words here, a few there, like MSG in a Chinese buffet. You can read her book, and hardly notice the horrors.
From 1880 on, the most goofy stories appeared about Lee, that never were mentioned by any one during his life....
Nothing was too goofy to claim. Caring only to bring souls to Christ, saving sparrows in the field. One image showed a mother bringing a child to Lee, as if he were Christ.
Myth making at its finest. Douglas Southall Freeman eventually won the goofy contest, claiming Lee not only had no faults to probe, but now sits at "the right hand of Christ, his Lord".
George Mason, above, described men like Lee as,
essentially, sociopaths dressed up for church. More, he predicted
such men would cause a "national calamity" over the spread of slavery.
He was right.
"Historians": such as the Douglas Southall Freeman,
described Lee as "Greatest Christian" who now sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord.
Very good at footnotes. Not good at truth. His father "served" with Lee, and apparently Freeman had a hard on for Lee, but turned out, he lied, or greatly exaggerated, on every page. Almost in every sentence, about Lee himself.
And Freeman made up shit, when he felt like it.
LEE'S SLAVES LOVED HIM MOST OF ALL??
Freeman's basic assertions were not true.
For example, a bed rock of Freeman's BS is that his slaves -- uh, servants, loved him "
most of all".
Freeman would quote a book (actually a pamphlet) by a former slave (actually this guy never met Lee) that supposedly proved Lee was such a marvelous anti-slavery person.
That "book" was actually a pamphlet handed out in 1920's and 30's by an old black men dressed up in a confederate uniform, who went around "preaching" and gave out the pamphlet before his "preaching".
Freeman would know who Lee's personal slaves were -- of course. None of them were this guy, Mack Lee, as he called himself.
Mack Lee, or whatever his real name was, spoke to white audiences and told them they were right --blacks should appreciate what whites have done for them. Then he collected an "offering" for his "church" he was going to build.
But Freeman made sure his readers know nothing of that.
Freeman made sure that readers DID NOT know Mack Lee was not listed in any of Lee's papers. If "Mack" was his "servant" all through the war, why did Lee's letters and papers never refer to him, but to other names?
And Freeman was not about to tell you that the "book" was filled with goofy stories, like Mack and Lee were in a house hit by a cannon ball, and Lee laughed and said "I aint never seen no nigger get hit like that".
That's the kind of shit in Mack Lee's pamphlet -- Freeman passed it off as factually one of Lee's slaves. Bullshit. And Freeman knew it.
That's called lying.
Nothing too goofy:
Right now -- today - not as a joke, folks insist Lee got off his horse, with all his officers, and prayed during battle, as bombs blew up around him. Problem is, Lee was never personally IN a battle, he stayed "well in the rear" according to Longstreet.
Things that turned out to be bullshit ...
Lee didn't own slaves -- bullshit
Lee freed all his wife's slaves -- bullshit
Lee prayed with a black woman, when no one else would -- bullshit
Lee got off of his horse and -- during battle, as bombs blew up around him, with all his officers, listened to a long prayer -- total bullshit
Lee only cared about saving souls for Christ. Gimmie a break.
Lee was a planter. Bullshit --Planter? He was a slave trader.
Lee's men adored him -- no, his desertion rate was 90%. 67% by '64.
Lee was the "most kind, and chaste man" of his era. Bull. Funny.
Lee had no faults to probe. Bullshit.
Lee's slaves loved him. They refused to leave when he freed them. - Sick.
This is sick. Remember, Lee had slave girls TORTURED for trying to escape. And this bastard tells us they loved him so much, they refused to leave?
What kind of sick fuck is he? And shame on those "history teachers" who let this kind of crap pass as "scholarship".
Robert E Lee wrote, and received, a lot of letters. And he saved them.
He wrote, apparently, highly detailed records.
Any slave owner's slave ledgers and letters to bounty hunters would contain some ghastly sentences. Slavery was a cruel enterprise, and bounty hunters were the worst of the worst.
Pryor knew things -- things no one had seen on paper for 150 years.
The truth came flooding in. Pryor had to be stunned, she had to have had sleepless nights, figuring out, how to get this all into the book, without trashing Lee, and all they "history" that went before?
If you had a video camera following Robert E. Lee (or any slave owner) around at a slave auction, and see what they laugh about, see the slave girls they sell or buy, see Lee load the women and children onto his wagon, see how he reacted to their cries, you would understand Lee, or any slave owner, better than any bullshit by any historian.
And that is if the "historian" tells you the truth.
In 1861, Union soldiers boxed up Robert E Lee's personal effects, including his slave ledgers and letters to and from bounty hunters.
After the war, the soldiers gave the Lee family all those personal items, many in two trunks of papers. Historians have long known those two trunks existed --and assumed they would just show what a lovely anti-slavery, noble and kind man Lee was.
Finally, one person got to see them.
They should show them -- too bad the Union soldiers didn't keep and publish his slave ledgers and letters. But at the time, those letters and slave ledgers were nothing unusual. Interesting stuff, but not at all news to people alive then.
Pryor is artful.
"Lee's slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management."
No single sentence, no paragraph, no page, will jump out and grab you, about torture, about rape, about bounty hunters about slave auctions. Delicate -- so delicate -- is Pryor that she can write sentences like this "Lee's slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management." As if Lee sat down at meetings with representatives of the Slave Union, local 405, and traded history of labor theory. Think of that. Think about that real hard. Lee had slave women sold - yes he did. He separated mothers from their children via slave auction and sending some slaves to deep south, yes, he did. And she writes this shit?
"Lee's slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management." That's not artful. Thats bat shit crazy, or it wins the Orwelliand double speak of the century.Hilariously, one reviewer of Pryor's books said "Well, she didn't pull any punches, that's for sure".
Didn't pull punches?
PRYOR'S JOB WAS TO GLOSS OVER.
TOO YOUNG TO BE WHIPPED?
NOT A PROBLEM FOR LEE.
This sounds like sophistry -- like it can not be true.
No one alive in 1860 in the South would be surprised that Lee had slave girls tortured for trying to escape.
Pryor tried to explain it away -- "Lee had every right to protect his property" she wrote, and claimed (falsely) that it was a law in Virginia that escaped slaves be whipped.
No one needed to write a law that slaves be whipped -- and other tortures used - for trying to escape. In fact, Virginia law tried to limit the number of slashes of the whip -- no minimum. But a maximum.
Pryor had in her hands, evidence of vile things. The worst part of humanity -- slavery. Slavery of young women. Slavery of children. That's what was going on at Arlington. It doesn't matter if you are so stupid you believe slavery was some moderate Christian thing. In the slave barns, at the whipping post, at the auctions, late at night and when no one was around, slavery was vile shit.
Lee was no exception.
If you are going to sell humans, and torture them for trying to escape, what line would you not cross? Is this too "complicated" for historians?
Pryor confirmed delicately as possible, that the three newspaper reports of Lee's torture of a slave girl too young to be whipped by the regular overseer, were true, were verified by Lee's own handwritten slave ledgers.
Amazing she was that bold. For an author to write sentences that slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management, - that she would ALSO later write about his tortures of the slave girl, too young to whip?
Pryor had to have emotional whip lash.
PISSED OFF ABOUT WHITE LOOKING SLAVES?
The pages may look ordinary to you -- but believe me, she had to freak out when writing some of this stuff, especially about white looking slave girls.
Pryor seemed to be pissed off about that. She called that a "horror". Whites were "increasingly enslaving other whites".
And they were -- but does torture of a white girl, hurt her any less than torture of black girl? Why is it a horror, only when she finds that some of these girls were light skinned, and a number (she won't say the number) could possibly pass for white.
THAT was horrible to her. Ghastly.
But whipping "regular" slave girls -- not a big deal. Right to protect his property.
In his ledgers, Lee himself and names, dates, prices he paid, that "undoubtedly" confirm the basic story of the torture (torture is the right word) of the girl too young or small for the regular overseer.
If that were not enough, after the war, reporters talked to ex slaves at Arlington and confirmed it, yet again, about this specific time, when Lee had the girl tortured.
AND TORTURE is the right word.
There should be a movie about the overseer, who refused.
How do you tell a story of a man so cruel he sold children, screamed at slave girls as they were tortured, bought kidnapped women, but make him seem noble and wonderful?
Read Pryor's book, she did it.
We know the slave ledgers and letters exist. Elizabeth Pryor wrote a an entire book about them. She won't show the slave ledgers, or letters. She would not even call them, candidly, slave ledgers.
She called them "monthly account books".
Pryor had to describe these ledgers someway. She had to use words -- what words would she use? She couldn't just say she got this through the grape fine.
Monthly account books.
Why not show them?
At least call them slave ledgers.
Her goal apparently was to keep Lee's halo upon his head, as much as possible, and not create an uproar.
Here is how amazing her skill was -- though she revealed really vile things -- her book was given a positive review by Journal of Southern History
WHITE SLAVERY IS HORRIBLE?
She "spanks" slave owners as a group. But she is actually writing about Lee. She is vague on that - she never writes "Lee was enslaving whites". But "Whites were enslaving other whites".
That's why you can read her book and not notice, she is writing about LEE. Not slave owners as a group.
By the way -- enslaving whites was next on the list. Few even speak about this, but here was talk, in the South, about enslaving whites too! Why not? The bible did not say specifically enslave blacks. Contrary to what you may think, there is nothing biblical about enslaving blacks, or blacks only.
In fact, as Vice President Stephens said, other nations had enslaved whites. Lincoln spoke about this in one of the debates -- all but overlooked now. Indeed some spoke of enslaving whites, it was exactly as right, or wrong, as enslaving blacks, that is, until the South created their own CSA Constitution.
ELIZABETH PRYOR DIED IN CAR ACCIDENT APRIL 1, 2015.
Virginia Historical Society should publish Lee's slave ledgers and dozens of letters to his bounty hunters.We know they have them. Elizabeth Pryor wrote a book about the slave ledgers and bounty hunter letters. Or as she calls them "Lee's personal papers."
Elizabeth Pryor adores Lee -- so why did she chose to put in a picture (the only picture of a slave in her book) about one of Lee's white looking slaves. It almost seems as if she wrote two books, at once. .
But Pryor includes a picture of a white looking child Lee owned? And much more. Wow. Wow.
DALLIANCE EARLY IN BOOK
"RAPE WAS COMMON" LATER IN BOOK
OKAY WHICH WAS IT?
Early in the book, when discussing sex with slaves, Pryor uses the word "Dalliance" which is a playful encounter with someone of the other sex, not necessarily even sexual at all.
Fred and Ginger had a "Dalliance".
So that's the mood she set. And she did not do anything without thought.
But she found rapes were common - at ARLINGTON. And that someone what was the father of these lighter skinned slaves.
Yes, she said, rapes were common. Had she put that on page 1 or page 5, people would notice. But she was careful, as always. The rapes were common at ARLINGTON, but Pryor's clever use of words and misdirection, you could easily miss that.
MOST OF LEE'S SLAVES DID NOT LOOK LIKE THE SLAVES ABOVE.
THESE ARE NOT HIS SLAVES, AND NOT FROM HER BOOK.
So Sorry, We will send you back immediately?OTHERS.
When Lee's bounty hunters brought him escaped slaves "AND OTHERS" -- the others had to be, those that were no his escaped slaves.
This was not that uncommon. Lee was in Northern Virginia - he could Washington. It was a simple matter -- for people who had money and no conscience - to buy kidnapped blacks. Blacks who were free and legally living in North. It happened -- regularly.
By trickery and force, bounty hunters grabbed free blacks anywhere they could. Drugged them, beat them, gagged them. Whatever.
The recent movie "12 Years A Slave" was about a man captured illegally, sold as a slave. He was not the only one, it was a business, a way to make money. Good money.
Men like Lee - -- large plantation owner -- would be the perfect buyer. And apparently he bought. We know he got "others" with his escaped slave. Pryor would never bluntly give us more information.
Pryor tells us about Lee's bounty hunters getting escaped slaves, and "others". Others? Pryor cleverly wrote Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork" and "technically, may have even broken the law."
Clever, even hilarious if this was not a man turning women into slaves by use of bounty hunters.
Seriously, the more vile Lee's action (in this case, creating slaves out of kidnap victims) the more effort Pryor put in her double speak. Techinically MAY have broke the law? Time consuming paper work? What the hell is she talking about, time consuming paperwork.
RAPES -- COERCION WAS USED
Rape, Pryor finally tells us, was common, at Arlington. Were rapes all violent?
Pryor artfully says "COERCION" used in "those situations".
Coercion? WTF does that mean? Those "situations"? Pryor has no shame -- but how would she get that in, without such euphemism.
She could have written "Rapes were common, and Lee's letters show women were raped by force". She could give us the names, if Lee's letter had them. Perhaps his wife wrote to him, for example, complaining about reports of torture or rape.
Most of the slaves at Arlington grew up with Lee's wife -- not Lee. She played with them as children. She knew them from babies up. So doubtless, when a slave girl was tortured, raped, or her child sold, they would have complained to MARY Lee.
And she would have contacted Lee. We can't know for sure -- Pryor won't tell us. But she did read letters to and from Lee about this. Someone wrote this down and Lee responded
Pryor came up with the term those "situations"? How long did it take her to pick that term? Coercion?? That means force. Did they beat her? Tie her up?
Pryor had to read something that led her to write "coercion". So, what was that something? Coercion was used in "those situations"?
Jeff Davis and others insisted slaves were "content and happy" with "natural affection for the master.
Oh really? Then why was Lee's biggest problem escaped slaves? And why did he have to use torture (torture is the right word) on slaves who tried to escape?
The 1839 book "Slavery As It Is" is almost unreadable. The vile tortures, described by hundreds of slaves or witnesses, is so disgusting, most people can not finish it.
Was Lee that bad? He was if you tried to escape, as you will see.
Lee's father had a slave girl hung - for knocking down a white man. Slave owners did not play -- what are you going to do, cut their pay?
As we know from Arlington itself, you were tortured if you tried to escape, and burned to death or hung if you fought back.
As Lincoln pointed out, slavery was founded on violence, kept going by torture, threat of torture, and threat of rape, threat of being sold to even more cruel men.
By the way -- slave owners did not bluff. When they told slaves they would be tortured, sold raped, that is exactly what happened.
HIT HER HARDER, HIT HER HARDER
By the way, do you know that, according to the newspaper at the time, Lee screamed at the girl all through her torture. Guess what he kept yelling?
According to them -- "Hit her harder, hit her harder" or in the vernacular of torture then "Lay it on, lay it on".
POOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS??
Pryor would not allow any blame to come to Lee -- it was not anger or lust or revenge that led Lee to pay bounty hunters to capture girls, and then personally direct their torture. No no no no. You got Lee all wrong!
Pryor says the torture (violent discipline) was a "result of Lee's poor cross cultural communication skills".
Here is an interesting letter from Lee to his wife. Pryor does show part of it -- not all of it. And she does not show the slave ledgers, or many letters.
The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?
WHAT WAS LEE'S CASH CROP?
Pryor nor anyone seems to have balls to tell you candidly -- slave owners like Lee cash crop was FLESH. Not veggies. Lee didn't have a turnip patch, a roadside stand selling veggies.
There is an Orwellian term for slave owners -- "historians" like Pryor uses is -- she calls Lee a "planter". She is not the only one to say "Planter" when she knows good and well, he was a slaver, and made money on slave flesh and slave labor.
Lee was one of those slave owners.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Posted by Seeker at 6:25 AM