Monday, September 10, 2012



Did you know that the Union army returned two trunks of Lee's personal papers, back to the Lee family, after the war?

Well, historians sure knew, and wanted to get their hands on those papers -- including slave ledgers -- but no one was allowed to even see them up close, for 150 years.

The historians assumed -- stupidly  it turns out -- that Lee's papers would just confirm what a great guy he was: anti slavery, kind,  brave, loyal to his country and wife,  and with tender concern for he well being of his "servants"

Uh, not so much.

Then the Lee family let one -- ONE -- person study them.  Elizabeth Pryor.  She would not dare show us one page of his ledgers, nor show one comment to his bounty hunters, to or from them.

And she was as flattering as she could be.  But she had a problem.  Lee wrote dirty letters, to various women, for decades.  He had slave ledgers showing cruelty and avarice almost unimaginable,  and showed Lee's tenacity to get more slaves, get richer on more slaves, and to punish -- meaning torture, -- and terrorize his slaves.  

Pryor adores Lee -- and the Lee family picked her for that reason.   She did not disappoint them.

Pryor's artful dodging begins, and must begin, in the title itself.  Reading the Man,  a Portrait of Robert E Lee though his personal letters.

But then, on another page, she might bury a tid bit you would hardly notice -- "Lee was the worst man we ever knew"   and "rape was common".

Plus, things planted here and there. For example, concerning rape at Arlington. Early in the book, she tries to pass off rape as "dalliances" between "the races".

That sets the tone.  Followed by praising Lee, as is common, and using Lee's own sweet letters to his children, as proof of his loveliness.

But later, buried far into the book, we find out rape was not only common, but women were attacked -- forced physically -- to provide sex.   Or as Pryor carefully put it, "coercion was used in those situations."

You have to read that paragraph two or three times, and the one before it, to realize "those situations"   were rapes.

The two trunks with the letters and slave ledgers.  Pryor in the blue dress.

Alan Nolan respectfully, timidly call for historians to "start over" on Lee 20 years ago, because what we had was, to paraphrase -- bullshit.  He had no clue how right he was. 

One of Lee's white looking slaves. 

Not this is not his admitted to daughter or grand daughter. 
 This is s slave girl. Pryor included this picture.   She didn't have to.
Was she trying to give us a clue?

Typical nonsense about Lee, in a book. 
Such "historians" just repeat the bullshit they read.

Fred and Rita Hayworth had a "dalliance".  Playful fun, sex or not.Pryor tried to pass of black white sex habits as "dalliances" in the first part of the book.

Later in  the book, Pryor seemed pissed.  Rape was common.  But she got that in so carefully, as she did all Lee's vile actions.

Rape early on, in the first few pages, was passed of as dalliances, but later in the book, rape was common and by force, and yes, at Arlington.  At times, you can almost see Pryor's revulsion for what she found -- but only when speaking of white slaves --slave women that could pass for white. And yes, Lee owned slave women that could pass for white.

There, Pryor is offended.  She seemed clueless that tying up a black girl to be whipped, is  no worse, nor hurts less, than tying up a white girl to be whipped or sold.

And Pryor knows -- as anyone should who has studied slavery -- that white looking slave girls were prized indeed -- as sex partners (Thomas Jefferson) and to be sold.  Lighter skinned girls were prized at auction, because they might well end up in whore houses in the South.  Southern men liked to have lighter skinned whores, than the more African looking slaves "right off the boat".

This was the reality of the day, and Lee lived in that day, and Lee sought to make his fortune and fame in that business.


She never claimed to be candid, and was far from it, as you will see. But she did what no one else dared -- she showed the tortures Lee ordered, his cruelty, his dirty letters, his obsession with capture of slave girls -- and even his purchase of kidnapped women, kidnapped in the North illegally, brought to Lee, and paid for by Lee.

Pryor could have called her book "Lee's dirty letters"  or "Lee's slave ledgers"   She could have shown us the prices, shown us the pages where he paid the bounty hunters, and his comments to them, their words to him.

But that is "not how it's done"  for Robert E Lee.  To her defense, Pryor would have been kicked off the premises, day one, had she even hinted she was going to be candid, and show the public what was actually in the slave ledgers.

Pryor essentially wrote two books, one on the surface, praising Lee as a religious man, with "warts" and "conflicts"  as some like to call his torture and purchase of free women kidnapped from the North -- yes, he did. 

And Lee not only had slaves tortured - torture in the right word -- Lee, as we see documented by overlapping sources, and verified by Lee's own records,  screamed at slave girls as he had them tortured.  Tortured is the right word.

Robert E Lee, a portrait and wrote her "portrait"  as she called her book, in as careful prose as you can write, when writing about rapes, tortures, and the purchase of kidnapped women.

Pryor was not out to remove Lee's halo from his head, but she had, as you will see, Lee's dirty letters (yes, dirty letters) to various women, that he wrote for decades.  

She had bounty hunter letters -- to and from Lee.   She had Lee's payments for girls, his payments for kidnapped women, from the North.  Yes, black women were kidnapped from the North, and taken South, and sold as slaves. Guess who bought some of these women?

Furthermore, Pryor used other sources, and Lee's comments on those sources.  The supposed "myth" of Lee ordering girls tortured for trying to escape, was not only true, but whipping slaves was COMMON at Arlington, as you will see.

And no, Lee was not against slavery.  In fact, he excused it, and excused the torture (it was torture, not kinda, not in away, but barbaric and Lee took part in it, screaming at slave girls as they were tortured)  as ordained by God. 

Of course, we would need the actual papers, the actual dirty letters, the actual letters to and from bounty hunters, the actual slave ledgers, most of all.   

But Pryor won't even call them "slave ledgers" --- even that is too much. She calls, them, and only once, "account books".   Perhaps they were account books, but these were accounts of human flesh.  Prices paid for capture and torture of escaped slaves --in the "account books".   Prices received for sold flesh - in the "account books".

Hilariously, some folks have read this book, and declared idiotically, "wow, she didn't pull any punches." Oh hell yes, she did.   But then, she had to, or she would never have been allowed to even see the papers, slave ledgers, letters to and from bounty hunters, etc. 

Lee against slavery?  That's nonsense.  Lee was very much pro slavery,  and that was his wish, his entire life "to be a planter"   which is a euphamism, used to this day, for "slave owner".   

By the way, the cash crop of "planters"  particularly in Virginia, was flesh.  Not plants.   They did not grow the cotton, that was further north.   "Planters" in Virginia, at least in Lee's life time, were mostly men who raised slaves, sold slaves to the deep South, until the Deep South had enough slaves, and cut back on purchases slaves from men like Lee.

In a very real since, the years from 1820 to 1850, the slave trade in the US was mostly guys like Jeff Davis, in Mississippi, buying women and children from men like Robert E Lee, in Virginia.  

Lee, of course, like all slave owners, justified by GOD. God delivered the black race to us, fit only for servitude. Lee insisted slaves were the fortunate ones, because only through slavery could they know GODS will and be saved.    God "knew and intended" slaves feel pain. Pain is "necessary for their instruction".   And Lee used pain-- and terror -- regularly.

That's what he told his wife. TO really understand men like Lee,  you would have to know what he said and wrote at the slave auctions. What were his comments about a 14 year old big busted girl he paid so much for, in his letters to slave hunters, and those who went North (yes they did) and kidnapped women there, to be sold in the South.

Remember Lee bought such women. 

As you will see, while Pryor does not outright call the previous biographies of Lee goofy nonsense, those biographies are goofy nonsense.  Particularly Douglas Southall Freeman's monumental and pathological love letter to Lee, is as goofy and deceptive as it gets.  Freeman painted Lee as the MOST kind, the MOSt charitable, the most brave.   That stuck, all through academia since, and it was not true, at all.

Lee was not loved by his slaves -- they hated and feared him, and many tried to escape, despite certain torture if caught, and no doubt (though Pryor does not show this) punishment of any family left behind. Slave owners did punish the children or parents of escaped slaves, and Lee was at least as cruel, if not more cruel, than others. 

If nothing else, even Pryor's careful prose, and Orwellian double speak, should forever show "Lee biographers" are full of bullshit.

Freeman  "epic" biography of Lee is so respected, it's taken as the absolute truth.  Hundreds, maybe thousands, of books, articles and lectures, are based on Freeman's supposed biography of Lee.

Alan Nolan, a respected historian, said 25 years ago, we need to "start over" on Lee, because what passed for academic scrutiny, as not that.   Nolan could have no clue what an understatment that was. 

Freeman said Lee freed his wife's slaves, and had none of his own. Bullshit, Lee's own papers show Lee bought slaves himself, and had slaves tortured.

Freeman also claimed Lee's "servants" loved him so much, they refused to leave -  total lie, and Freeman knew it.

 Lee's slaved tried to escape, dozens, if not many dozens, and they tried to escape, despite certain torture (yes torture is the right word)  by Lee himself.  Lee personally attended the tortures, as you will see, and screamed horrible things at the slaves -- even slave girls -- as they were being tortured.

And no, Lee wasn't against slavery.  He got a big kick out of it, made his money, and  got his fame, from being married to the biggest slave plantation in Virginia.


It should be no surprise that Orwellian double speak was the normal verbage for how slave owners explained things to their wives and children.

Iditoically, however, "historians" have largely just accepted the very clever Orwellian nonsense that men like Lee wrote, and just ignored completely Lee's full text defending torture (yes, he defended torture) and omitting facts known well by historians, such as Lee's purchase of kidnapped women.

In fact, Lee is the only person in US history to order his troops to invade a country and gather up hundreds of free people, then take those free people back to CSA and have them sold as slaves.

In Lee's financial records- - full of prices paid, for which slave, full of payments for girls that were 600% higher, Pryor found -- are very likely any records, if they exist, for Lee's cash gain, from the free people he had kidnapped from the North during the war, and sold as slaves. 

You may here a brave historian mention that -- we show you the clever whitewashing of Lee's invasion of the North and forcing hundreds of women and children to march South in chains, and be sold into slavery.   But when anyone even mentions such a vile thing, they tone it down so much, it's essentially meaningless.


Lee was a "young planter"  Pryor told us. All he ever wanted to be was a "planter"

Orwell much?   That's how Pryor is able to remove the barb from the barb wire.  Lee was a slave trader -- and slaver. He did not plant a fucking thing.   His money did not come from plants.  He did  not sell cotton. He did not sell potatoes. 

He did not get money from a local farmers market.

He got money -- and Pryor knows this well -- from slave flesh, and slave labor. He sent slaves (and kidnapped women he turned into slaves) to auction, if he did not want them. He turned them into CASH.

Why the fuck not say his money came from slave flesh and labor?  Too honest by far. You can't then write much else.


Furthermore, Lee bought, as Pryor tells us carefully, "others" .  His bounty hunters did not just return with escaped girls, Lee paid out for "others" -- and Pryor makes sure she was as vague as possible. Again and again, Pryor does this.

The more vile the action -- like buying kidnapped women, his bounty hunters caught in the North -- the more careful Pryor is, in telling about it.

She won't even say the word SLAVE, or use Lee's name in the surrounding paragraphs, and you can easily assume Pryor is writing about slave owners, other than Lee.   This is true for rapes, for tortures, and for buying "others"

But she did get it in, trick as hell double speak, or not, it's there.

Regarding those "freemen"  who Lee paid bounty hunters for, were "others"  -- and she had to have reason to know they were not slaves or not from the South.  Pryor of course could have, and should have,  shown us the records, and made it clear, but her agenda was quite the opposite.

Regarding those souls Lee bought, they were free blacks, in the North, and Pryor artfully says "Lee failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork"  and "technically, Lee may have broken the law."

Technically?   May have?   Time consuming paperwork?

Lee is shown as the VICTIM of a cruel bureaucracy!  Time consuming paperwork my ass. There was no paperwork to fill out for kidnapped "others" -- meaning not slaves, not born in the South, etc. 

It's important to remember, she got all this, from Lee's own papers. Not from someone else, not from newspapers, not from rumors.   Her source of information was Lee's slave ledgers, and Lee's letters, to and from Lee.

So where is the information?

In his letters to lovers.

In his letters to bounty hunters. 

In his own words, and words written to him.  

You can read this entire book, and not be offended by anything Lee did. Pryor is so clever, so Orwellian.

In one of my favorite passages -- Pryor writes a humdinger, especially when you know Lee tortured slaves and was a particularly cruel man.  Pryor wrote "The servants did not fully agree with Lee's theory of labor management" (check this, cite page)


But to his wife, Lee wrote religious excuses for his "discipline "  torture, of slaves.   It was God's will. God knew and intended slaves feel "painful discipline".   It is not up to us to question God.

This was not the least unusual, all slave owners had to justify the tortures, and slavery itself.  And they did it, as we know from hundreds of examples, by telling their wives and each other about scripture.

But in their other letters, they were NOT so religious. Sexually explicit letters -- no Jesus stuff. Joking about sex tricks -- no scriptures. 

No, this is not wrong.  There is documented evidence of this, verified by his own hand written writings.



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 preferred religion -- for the simple reason, it worked.


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?   


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.



 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"


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.


Did you know Lee's bounty hunters caught free blacks in the North --  when they were looking for escaped slaves?   They sold those blacks to Lee.  

That's in his papers. 

Did you know  Lee had slave girls tortured -- torture is the right word -- while Lee himself taunted and screamed at the girls?

That's in his papers. 

Did you know Lee  had his soldiers, during the Civil War, invade the North, get all the black people they could find, chained them,  took them South, and sold as slaves-- by Lee's orders.

That's in his papers. 



Pryor is like the great great granddaughter, of a man supposedly above reproach -- kind, fearless, religious, pious, kind.  This grand daughter reads the man's diary, finds out he is a child molester, a rapist, a slave trader, who was cruel, even by standards of slave owners. 

Rapes were common. Torture -- yes, it was torture -- was common. Terror was how Lee controlled his slave women, and how he got more.

Lee  not only owned his wife's slaves (as "historians" like to bullshit "manage")  Lee bought more, and was astonishingly cruel.   He didn't care where he bought them either, captured illegally in the North?  So what. God intended blacks to be slaves, and be punished, as you will see. 


Lee owned over 100 slaves-  maybe over 200, Pryor knows an exact number but is coy about giving it up.

She cleverly admits, however, that over half -- OVER HALF -- of Lee's slaves were mulatto, lighter skinned.  How many could pass for white?  Pryor mentions that Lee himself wrote about one of his slave women passing for white.  Pryor won't tell us the nature of that letter, or who this slave woman was, nor what Lee did with  her, nor how many others might have passed for white.

But Pryor had those records -- and could have, should have, been much more forthcoming. 

 YES THIS IS A BLOG -- NOT A DOT COM.    I have a .com and will transfer this over soon.  

Did you know Lee bought women his bounty hunters captured in the North, that were never slaves, and Lee turned them into slaves?

And that, too, is the tip of the iceberg.





Have you ever seen a picture,

of one of Lee's white looking slave girls?




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.

 The point is not me or this blog, the point is, what does the evidence show about Robert E Lee's tortures, probably rape, and profound cruelties he committed, regularly and  over years.   You will see here, even when a historian like Pryor finally admits rapes, tortures, cowardice, greed-- like Lee paying bounty hunters to capture free women in the North, and using slave auctions to get more profit,   she does so as carefully way as humanly possible.  

Did you know Robert E Lee's slave ledgers -- and letters to bounty hunters -- still exist?

Did you know his sexually explicit letters, to various women, that he wrote for 30 years, still exist?


You probably think "scholars" were impartial, and basically truthful, about Lee.  Actually most of what those "scholars" told us for 150 years was not only wrong, they knew it was wrong.

But it always sounded better.

Douglas Freeman epic biography of Lee, widely considered "definitive,"  may actually be the rantings of a lunatic who happened to know how to use footnotes.  Freeman's biography of Lee is so effusive, so detailed, and so much bullshit. 

How do we know, now?   Lee's own personal papers.



Pryor blames Lee's torture of slave girls on  his "poor cross cultural communication skills" .


Pryor. the author of the book about Lee's papers (including his slave ledgers, bounty hunter letters, and sexually explicit letters to various women over decades --  is the only person we know of that was allowed to see all of Lee's slave ledgers and letters.

And, she adores Lee.   She worked with, literally side by side, the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society, on Lee's papers.   She was not out to destroy Lee, in fact, quite the reverse.

She was out to keep the halo upon his head, as far as possible.



Pryor was very careful  how she told her readers about his tortures, the rapes, the white looking slave girls.  She told of them a few words here, a few there, sometimes in Orwellian double speak, sometime in outright nonsense, as you will see.

Pryor could write sentences that were hilarious, if torture was funny. She wrote things like "the slaves did not fully agree with Lee's theory of labor management".

Did not fully agree?  They were tortured -- and knew they would be tortured -- if they tried to escape. Their children could be sold, or they could be sold, as punishment.

Rape was common at Arlington, as you will see. C O M M O N.

If you don't know rape of slave women was common, this all may surprise you, and Lee's slave farm (it really is a euphemism, that we will not use here, to call a slave farm a "plantation".   Lee didn't plant anything, his cash crop was slave flesh and their labor.

Yet many who read Pryor's book do not even notice the violence, which was common, or the rapes, which Pryor admits was also common.

One reviewer hilariously said "Well, one thing for sure, Pryor didn't pull any punches".

Actually, Pryor worked very hard, it seems, to not land a single punch, give the horrors that she found.



Pryor calls them horrors.

Pryor did get in amazing facts,  but in careful ways.  No single sentence every stood out, and it probably took Pryor longer to write around the torture and rapes, that any other thing she revealed in the book.

Pryor seems smitten with Lee on nearly every page -- EXCEPT when she finds out Lee had white looking slave girls. And white looking slave girls, as Pryor knew, was not immune from rape, in fact was possibly more likely to be used for the males sexual pleasure.  We do know that lighter skinned slave women were prized at slave auctions, and sold to men who wanted them for their own "use"  and others that used them in whore houses.

Yes, whore houses.  There were slave women bought for use in whore houses.  Get over it -- they had to.

Pryor seems okay with all the tortures, rapes, selling children, etc, she even blames the girls for being tortured.  She cleverly suggested "Lee had every right" to protect his property.   She did not, in that paragraph or page, tell her readers Lee was torturing girls that would be in junior high today, with various torture devices, and taunted her all through her torture.



The only reason people today would find it unbelievable that Lee was an especially cruel man, is that were are taught bullshit about it.     That's part of a larger fraud,  because we are not taught of the systemic torture, the vile ISIS like behavior of Southern leaders.   The South was a violent place, and slave owners used religion -- loudly proudly, and ISIS like, to torture, to burn, to terrorize.

Nor did Pryor  mention, in that page, anything about torture being routine for slaves who did not do as Lee ordered. SHe would admit as much, but always in a clever way.   Pryor is much too smart to accidently, again and again, minimize the tortures, separat Lee's name from the horrors, and not make it clear, Lee personally was involved in the tortures, personally ordered free women captured in North, and personally  defended the torture of slaves as ordained by God.

 Slavery was NOT a noble calling or a kindness to slaves, as Lee and Jeff Davis would posit. Idiots today will try to excuse Lee and others by saying "they were just protecting their economic interest" or, they were just obeying the God they believed in.

  By "protecting his property"  if Pryor had written candidly, she meant torture girls.  Horribly "historians" have always put Orwellian double talk into books about Southern leaders, they have never, since 1900, been blunt about any Southern leader, by name. In fact, they lied their asses off, or just repeated the bullshit fed to them.

Pryor was never graphic, and  used Orwellian double speak and euphemism.  She would admit slaves women were raped -- and raped often -- at Lee's slave farm. She would write things like "coercion was used in those situations"

Coercion?  What the hell does that mean?

She does use the word "horror" only when discussing white looking slave girls. Why is it only a horror if white girls are raped, tortured, sold?  Everything else, Pryor writes about as if she was discussing how to make a vanilla smoothie.

She had to say SOMETHING about the rapes,  I suppose.  She did not want to just jump over them, omit them, entirely.

But Coersion was used? Could she not say, four men had to hold the slave mother as her child was raped?  Did the slave women get whipped for resisiting rape?  Did they get punished for fighting for their child, their wife, their daughter?

  Was that it?  Who did what?  We don't know.  

Pryor course, did not say. She put it in the most benign way possible, other that to leave it out.

 She had to see something in his letters or papers to know this, it did not come to her in a dream. So what, exactly, did she see in Lee's papers?  Of course she is not going to tell us in candid terms.  

Who used coercion? 

Still -- you have to give Pryor credit. She did not have to admit even that much, in clever terms. She could have just kept quite about it, entirely.

 You mean they held the women down and gang raped them?  Snuck into the women's barn at night and raped who they chose?  Did Lee get letters about such activity? Did he do anything to stop it?  Were he or his son's involved?

Who the hell knows?  But we do know, rape was common, and force was used.

Lee had a SLAVE FARM.  His product was not cotton, or potatoes, or corn.  His revenue was slave flesh, women and children and men, bought, and sold, rented out. 

More students in Virginia know the name of Lee's pet chicken, than know Lee bought free women from the North.
Worse, most historians are likewise stupid about Lee. 

As you will see, Lee apparently did not care at all if his bounty hunters found women in the North that were living there free-- he bought them, too. And had them whipped, too. And sold them, or rented them out, or their children too.

 And why would he care if they were free women, or escaped slaves?

Did not God want blacks to be slaves?  Lee said that was the will of God.  

Did not God intend slaves be tortured (painful discipline is necessary for their instruction, Lee wrote)?   

Lee insisted it was "Providence"  that delivered the slaves to him.  Was not God in charge of the bounty hunters, as well as the blacks they captured in the North?

Once you use God as your defense of torture, and the enslavement of millions of people, what would you not do?  Would you suddenly say "Oh my, those women are from the North, God wanted them up there, take them back immediately. You have our sincere apologies, you black women" 

George Mason knew Lee's father, and hundreds of slave owners.  Mason said at the time, to anyone who would listen, that slave owners are all "petty tyrants"  who are as vile as any tortures in history.   To update his metaphor, slave owners were sociopaths dressed up for church.   Slave owners would espouse some religious nonsense as a cover, but he knew them personally, he saw them at slave auctions, he heard what they laughed about, and what they did with women, that our "historians"  would rather pretend slavery was an honorable and chaste endeavor by men of principle.

Pryor apparently assumes -- correctly -- that most people have no clue Lee was not only a slave owner, but a very cruel one, personally.  If anything, he was more cruel than most slave owners, because he would personally be involved in torture of the girls who tried to escape, and paid extra, as you will see, for certain girls, of a certain age.  

And no, Lee was not anti slavery.  See his actions, and his own words, that you probably never heard, except for very clevery distortions.


Do you know Lee had women -- that were never slaves before -- captured in the North illegally, brought to the South, and sold as slaves?

Yes, he did. See below.

   Not Lee's slave ledger -- Pryor is very careful to tell us what is in his slave ledgers, and letters, and never shows us any of them.   The only way to get to the bottom of this, is for the family to release the documents.

There is a very good reason they kept them secret so far, and only let one person see them all.

See if you can guess what that reason might be.

Did you know that Lee had his soldiers gather up hundreds of free women (and men, and children) in the North, that were never slaves, had them chained together, whipped, and brought to the South, and there sold them into slavery?

Yes, he did. See below.

Don't blame me you didn't know. Blame you "history" book, and Southern crybabies for putting out 150 years of bullshit. 


And much more.

under construction 
under construction 
under construction 

under construction 

If Robert E Lee came back today, Elizabeth Pryor would probably tell him one thing: Burn your letters and slave ledgers
Please, General Lee, please, burn your letters & ledgers.


 But he did not burn them.


  You only know what you are told.  

You were not there.

Lee was there. And -- he wrote it down.



Elizabeth Pryor is the only person in 150 years, to hold Robert E Lee's slave ledgers, dirty letters, and letters to bounty hunters in their hands, and have any idea what they were.

Think about that.

150 years, US "historians" have waxed the most amazing bits of sophistry and bullshit about Lee.

All the while, Lee's slave ledgers, letters to and from bounty hunters, lay there. No historian was allowed to see them, but most knew about the two trunks of papers. 

The girls, tortured and raped at Arlington, sold, terrorized, and taken from their mothers, are long gone.  But Lee's slave ledgers remained. Every day. Every night. 

See the trunks here.   It's about as close as you will come, and sadly, Pryor nor the Lee family are about to let you see them or even get blacked out copies.


You probably don't know that much of what's in our text book is bullshit, this will be a good lesson for you.  

 Not that liars or evil bastards write the text books -- but repeating bullshit, and adding their own 2 cents, is what "historians" generally do.

Had they been told the facts -- like Lee's torture of girls, purchase of kidnapped women from the North, his likely rape of girls in his slave farm (he had a slave farm, we should call it that)   they likely would have revealed that.

History is this -- who killed who, and why, and what did they brag about at the time.  All else is bullshit.

Turns out, there is a lot of bullshit floating around about Lee, and the Civil War.  If you ever grasp that history is really who killed who and why, you wont be so easily fooled by bullshit.   And, until you do learn that,  you will be easily fooled by  bullshit.

Bullshit is not necessarily lies -- but rather, what "historians"  write that they hope makes them sound smart to brilliant.  Bullshit is tied to the human ego, we all want to sound smart, historians necessarily so.    But what's in our history books should be real history as much as possible, not bullshit.

The myth of Lee is as good of an example as you will find.





Some Lee apologist will admit Lee had the slaves tortured (it was torture, and it was especially cruel, and Lee taunted the slave women before the tortures and during the torture.

But they hope you will assume that was one time incident, or that overall he was kind to his slaves.

Bullshit.  Pryor -- always very reluctant to admit anything horrible that Lee did -- is careful how she say it, but Lee's preferred method of torture -- (yes it was torture) was the whip, but he used other devices, such as salt.

He also used psychological torture and terror.  Pryor admit Lee "broke up families"  and clevery admits that was a punishment to them.  More plainly stated -- Lee sold the mother away, or the child, as punishment.   

So slaves ALWAYS lived, hour to hour, under the thread of rape (see below) or being whipped, or having their children sent away, or their children whipped.

If anyone thinks slavery was a kind institution, or they treated slaves like family -- you are a fucking idiot.  The South  has tried to push that bullshit -- and stupid people believe it.

Slavery was ALWAYS forced, and always the owner used terror and religion to fool or oppress the slave.

And -- as you will see -- rape was common -- common specifically at Arlington.

 There were ample books written by escaped slaves and eyewitnesses at the time, and documents in Lee's own handwriting, that show how barbaric it was.

Yes, Lee could at times write religious bullshit to his wife -- but as George Mason wrote when Lee was still as children, men raised to see slavery as ordained by God (Lee's excuse) were more like sociopaths dressed up for church, though he used the vernacular of his day

As you will see, Lee paid kidnappers BEFORE the war, to get women in the North that were living there free, not ex slaves, not escaped slaves, but living legally as free blacks.    Those women were just unlucky enough to cross the path of Lee's bounty hunters.

When slave women were raped (Pryor delicately admits, as you will see, raping slave was COMMON)  they had children.  The children were mixed race.

Then, those slave girls were raped. And they had children.  Did you know that?

Guess what? According to Lee's OWN slave ledgers and the census report of 1860, Lee owned an astonishing number of light skinned or mixed race humans. In fact, over half -- over half -- let me repeat that -- over half, of Lee's slaves, according to his own paperwork ,were not dark skinned blacks.

Well what else do you do? Free a child that is born with lighter skin?  No. Actually light skinned slave girls, we know for a fact, sold for more money at actions.  At auction, anyone could buy that girl -- and did. Some light skinned girls -- like the ones Lee owned -- ended up in whore houses.  Yes, they did.  You can crap your pants or deny it, but this is exactly the kind of thing that happend frequently.

Remember -- Pryor, who adores Lee -- admitted, as you will see, that rapes were common at ARLINGTON.  And Lee had more light skinned slaves that anyone else we know of.  Pryor tells us that normally, 10% of a slave farm the size Lee had, would have10% light skinned or mulatto slaves.

Lee's slave farm had over 50%. Pryor won't tell us how much over 50% - she just said over 50%.

So when Lee bought humans from bounty hunters -- he was a businessman, same as when he sold slaves at auction, which he did, according to his own records.

By his actions, Lee proved he did not give a shit  if they were escaped slaves, his or other escaped slaves, He bought them anyway.

Nor is this surprising -- in fact, it was COMMON in Northern Virginia to get more money this way. Just have your bounty hunters grab them.

Do you think slave owners really cared if a black woman was born in Virgina -- or born in Maryland or Boston?  No. If you are going to whip women -- which Lee did, (Pryor admits whipping was the normal way Lee "disciplined" slave women -- but he had other means, he used on top of whipping)

Men who sell children and whip women -- no matter what they say in letters to their wives to explain stuff -- do not care if another woman he buys was from this state or that.   Slave owners bought women at auctions, they bought them from bounty hunters.  

Someone said that if you could see Lee's face and hear what he said at a slave auction -- for ten minutes - you would know more about then than ten years of reading so called "Lee experts".

Pryor -- as you will see -- is clever. She admits he paid for "others" but does not make it clear who others were.  Well, they could not be his escaped slaves, if he paid also for "others".  She also writes in a way, you aren't really sure what the hell she is talking about. At one point, she writes about this saying "Technically, Lee could have been breaking the law" and that "Lee failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork"      Here is a clue -- there was no paperwork, time consuming or otherwise, to grab free woman of any color in the North.    You probably didn't know this was a BFD in the North, bounty hunters coming up and grabbing free women. Well, it was. And someone should have told you.


Lee during the Civil War, had his soldiers do the same thing, on a large scale -- his soldiers, per his orders, rounded up hundreds of free blacks in the North, put them in chains, drove them by whip to the South and sold them.

So it was not a big deal to Lee -- he had done that before the war. Others had too.  This was one way to make more profit, get more power, have more women available.


 Most people have no clue today, that slave rape was common.

C O M M  O N.

In fact, it was a BFD as time went on, the white looking babies, or lighter skinned babies. Lee's -- amazingly -- had a very high percentage, Pryor said over half -- of mulatto slaves. Some where so white they could pass for white.

A white looking child, or even close to white, is pretty good proof that women were raped.

  That Lee  had hundreds of free blacks captured, drive South and sold, is NOT IN DISPUTE.  It's just told of in euphemism and Orwellian double speak -- often not mentioning Lee by name.  But Lee was the one in charge, and he ordered it.

It's possible that when -- if -- Lee's papers are made public, we find that Lee got the money for those captured blacks. But that is of little consquences, the fact is, Lee, before and during the war, turned free people into slaves.


One way you can tell a myth -- everything is amazing. Lee was the MOST kind, the most brave, the most chaste.  Bullshit, he was a dirty old man, rape was common at his slave farm, and he had various women for decades that he wrote sexually explicit letters to.  Do you write sexually explicity letters to people you have a platonic relationship with?  No, you fucking don't.

Lee's slave girls were raped- - often -- by someone white.  Lee made a profit on white looking slave girls -- did you know that?  Did you know white looking slave girls were sold at auction, like the auctions at Nathan Bedford Forrest slave auctions?  And those women ended up in whore houses -- yes they did -- famously in New Orleans,.

Did Lee know the white looking or light skinned slave girls he sold at auction ended up in whore houses?  FUCK YES.  Everyone knew.

Nor was Lee personally brave, as the myth tell us.  Virtually everything in the Lee myth is bullshit. Most of the quotes attributed to him, came well after his death, as you will see.  Lee could write very clever  letters to his wife about "praying" to end slavery -- but he would have girls tortured who dared tried to run away, and he bought, as his own handwritten records show, other women, and turned them into slaves.

Yes -- Lee turned women INTO slaves. 

All slave owners could write and speak in a way that their wives would be fooled, but out behind the barn, all kinds of shit -- rape, torture,taunting girls while they were tortured, selling children --went on. And it went on at Lee's slave farm.

Yes, he did.  The myth of Southern leaders compassion for slave women is bullshit, and always was.  Slave rape -- even on Lee's slave farm, was common, Lee's papers show.  

Elizabeth Pryor is the first -- and only -- person to get unlimited access to Lee's slave ledgers, bounty hunter letters, and more.   She adores Lee.  She is  on his side.   She is not out to trash him.

Elizabeth Pryor  adored Lee.   She worked very hard to keep Lee's halo upon his slave torturing head.

Elizabeth Pryor had, in her hands, Lee's dirty letters, payments for kidnapped women, and evidence Lee turned free women into slaves.


The myth is -- that Lee didn't own slaves, did not like slavery, and even that Lee's wife's slaves loved him so much, they would not leave when he freed them.

Supposed "experts" told us that. 





"Hang on to your hats Lee fans-- 
it's going to be a bumpy ride"


More "history teachers" know the name of Lee's horse, than know Lee owned slave girls -- so light skinned, Lee himself wrote about them being able to "pass for white."

Are they teaching myth in schools, or fact?

Well, it sure as hell is not facts, not about Lee, and not about Southern leaders generally.

Lee, for example, as you will see, recorded his own purchase of slave girls, payments to men to torture slave girls, and the sale of slaves to auction houses.

Furthermore, his letters to various women - over decades -- contained sexually explicit messages, like bragging about his son's sexual ability, and his own sex tricks. 

Lee was not anti slavery -- he just used double talk to fool his wife, about the torture of slave girls, as you will see.

Which is more important -- Lee's name for his pet chicken, or Lee's slave girls names?  The girls he bought from bounty hunters, especially.

No one in Virginia "educational" system can tell you even one name of one slave girl, that Lee bought from bounty hunters.

They can ALL , however, tell you the name of Lee's pet chicken.
So what they know is pretty much bullshit.  



 Every aspect of "history" can be word games.   Such as, calling men like Lee a "planter"  which Pryor does.  Most "historians" do the same thing.

What plants?  Lee grew no cotton, no veggies for sale, no beef for sale.  And he sure as hell didn't plant anything, whatsoever.

But that is just the start of the Orwellian bullshit  that was repeated so often, it was accepted as truth.

It was never true -- no matter how many times stupid people repeat it.


His crop was --always -- slaves.  Slave labor. Slave children (yes, he sold children)   Lee bought women.  He sold women.  He bought men. He sold men.

Lee used slave auctions -- Pryor is careful how she admits that -- and BOUNTY HUNTERS. He also paid men that kidnapped women, as you will see.

Yes, he paid money to hunters to kidnap women from the North, that were not slaves, never were.   If you saw the  movie "12 Years As A Slave"  -- they should have show it was Lee's hunters, and men like them, that grabbed black free people in the North, and took them South for sale.

Lee was one of the buyers.


Sound crazy?  It only sounds crazy because most people do not know how vile slavery was. Slave owners -- including Lee -- who were wealthy enough, did buy blacks from hunters, and some of these blacks were caught in the North.

Pryor, who had Lee's slave ledgers in her hands, discovered this. She found evidence Lee paid hunters for "OTHERS".  She admits he had bounty hunters out for months, he even directed them where to find certain escaped slaves.  But -- they returned with "others".  See more below about Lee's purchase of "others"   -- during the war, and before.

You can only push bullshit like this, via word games.  Lee, as far as anyone knows, did not plant anything. At all.

When Pryor talks about Lee "managing the plantation"   she covers up the truth. He took leave from the Army several times to come back to Arlington, sell this slave, torture (yes torture) that slave, pay bounty hunters, and buy other humans.

Some humans Lee bought, were already slaves.

Some humans Lee bought, were not slaves, until Lee got his hands on them.

That type of language -- absent the bullshit -- is real history. When these bastard shit head "historians" use euphamism, they are covering up history, they are lying.  Simple, honest language is they only way to convey actual history, which is why almost no one uses it. Especially historians who want to honor men like Lee.

Simple factual language would, of course, destroy bullshit myths. Which is why we try to use simple honest language here.  No doubt, this will not seem like history to most people who read it -- where is the double talk bullshit and euphemism they are accustomed to?

Lee's "plantation"  was a slave farm. He was not a planter, don't call him a planter. He was a slaver.

. He grew slaves, he traded in, he bought, he sold, he rented out SLAVES.

Lee did not sell cotton, or even raise it. He did not sell veggies.  He did not have a farmer's market.   He sold SLAVE LABOR and slaves themselves.

Pryor, of course, could have made that clear with one sentence.

But Pryors goal was never to be candid.  Her goal was to please those who hired her, and allowed her, to see those papers.

She could not, as a practical matter, trash Lee by telling the truth.  

She instead wrote in a very clever way. Doe does tell so much more, drastically more, than anyone did so far.

No one told us Lee bought women -- had women tortured. No one told us he wrote sexually explicit letters.

Lee even had orders for his soldiers to shoot OTHER confederate soldiers who ran during battle. Yes he did.

Did you know that?  No.  Do you know who else did that?

Stalin. That's who. Pryor tells us that, and all horrible things, in her diplomatic even Orwellian way, but she tell us.

But then - -no one ever had his slave ledgers in their hands, nor the dirty letters, nor the bounty hunter and kidnapper information, either.



More "historians" know the name of Lee's pet chicken, than know Lee's slave ledgers and letters to bounty hunters still exist.

Some historians know that Lee turned hundreds of free people - blacks who lived in the North -- into slaves, during the war. Lee had his men round up hundreds of women in the North (and men, and children), had them chained, whipped, and driven South in huge cattle drives, men on horses whipping them as they went.


Lee ordered that.  That is not in dispute. 

The people Lee ordered gathered up, taken South, to be sold as slaves were NOT slaves until Lee got his hands on them.


The people Lee ordered gathered up, taken South, to be sold as slaves were NOT slaves until Lee got his hands on them.

They were blacks living in the North, unlucky enough to be in the area Lee ordered cleared of blacks, the blacks taken South and sold.

But Lee had already done that, on a small scale, before the CIvil War, he had bounty hunters capture women in the North, as you will see, turned into his own personal slaves.

Amazing -- but Pryor found evidence of that in his own slave ledgers, in his own hand writing.

Pryor had Lee's slave ledgers, where Lee himself recorded the horrors of slavery.

 For every line Lee wrote -- women and children suffered, were whipped, terrorized, sold, whatever Lee ordered, that's what his men did.

Lee wrote a few words, a child was sold. He wrote another few words, he bought other women. Lee seemed focused on women -- though Pryor would not say so. 


But Lee did pay much -- much -- higher prices for women.   Pryor did get us that information, as carefully as she could.  Now, why would Lee pay so much more money, for girls -- and girls of a certain age?  Think about it -- you will figure it out. 

Lee even wrote dirty letters (yes Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to various women for decades) and letters to, and from, bounty hunters.
Pryor had those in her hands.
She studied them. 



Pryor was almost comical -- if the subject was not torture and slavery..

Pryor's bizarre--- but necessary word---- games to absolve Lee of any blame whatsoever. There is not one sentence in her entire book, blaming Lee for anything whatsoever.

Some of the linguistic tricks she used -- 



Nothing in US history uses Orwellian bullshit and double talk, as much as slavery.

Lee is the perfect example....  Lee was not a cruel horney man -- no no no.  Pryor claimed Lee just "had poor cross cultural communication skills" that led to the tortures.

Torture is the right word. 

Speaking of massive escape attempts, she writes... "The slaves did not fully agree with Lee's theory of labor management"...

Speaking of  Lee's tortures  "[whippings] were a result of Lee's poor cross cultural communication skills"

Speaking of rapes as common  "coercion was used in those situations"

Speaking of buying kidnapped women "Lee failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork... technically, he may have broken the law"



Retailers know the art of packaging.  Make a beautiful package, you can sell almost anything.   Lee has been packaged for 150 years.  Enough.

Time for the truth.

Likely, Pryor had to be, because she worked literally with the Lee family -- they own these letters, slave ledgers, and papers.  Side by side, physically, with members of the family and Virginia Historical Society.

But she does get the information in -- 


In fact, Pryor reserves the word horror, not for the tortures Lee applied, not for rapes that occurred regularly at Arlington, not for his purchase of kidnapped women -- not even for his orders to shoot his own soldiers who ran during battle.   She saves the word horror for the fact Lee was enslaving white women, women that looked white.

Looked white? White, after all, is a look.  If you look white, you ARE white. 

As slave girls were raped by white men, the children born from those were lighter skinned. When those slave girls, now of mixed race, where raped, their children born of rape, were even lighter.  

Pryor is the first person in history to tell us some basic facts -- like OVER half of Lee's slaves were mulatto!  Cleverly she did not go further, over 50%? 

 That is a stunningly high percentage, and Lee apparently had not only more slaves than anyone in Virginia (yes, he owned slaves himself, see below) but no one came close, as far as we know, of so many light skinned slave girls.

Lee owned slave girls that could pass for white - according to Lee's own comments in his letters. That his how Pryor found out.

Yes, Pryor got this information FROM LEE.  Try to grasp that.  Not from someone trying to make Lee look bad.  Pryor gets almost all her information FROM LEE'S  HANDWRITTEN PAPERS.

 Pryor could have showed us those papers, she could have shown us the slave ledgers, she could have shown us the letters to and from bounty hunters.

All we get from Pryor, however, are the very clever, even artful, euphamism.

She shows us a drawing Lee did for a pump -- so what?  Why not show us a page from his slave ledgers?  A letter of instructions or payments to bounty hunters?  That would have shown  us 1000000 timex more than som stupid drawing of a pump. She put in the drawing of a pump.

White slaves?  That is what upset Pryor.

Torture of black slaves? Not a big deal -- Lee had "every right"  to "protect his property"  Pryor wrote.   Pryor even lied (she crossed over to lies several times) saying Lee HAD to whip the run away girls, by Virginia law. That's bullshit, the law was for a MAXIMUM number of lashes.

Pryor knew that.  But she had to defend Lee's torture - because she admits he did -- indeed -- have slave girls whipped, and REGULARLY. Not just a rare time.  She tried to make it SEEM rare -- for example, she said Lee  had the whipping post installed "as a silent reminder".

Silent my ass, Lee had girls tied to those post and whipped while they screamed for mercy, and blood ran down their backs into pools.  They Lee also had OTHER tortures applied to that same victim - like salt poured over their own wounds. He would also send offending slave girls away from their mother, or send the mother away.

Silent reminder?  Gawd.

 White looking girls being sold, enslaved, worked, raped, their children taken, ect.  All the horrors and pain of slavery really didn't seem to matter to Pryor, in her writing EXCEPT when she got to her paragraphs about white looking slave. THen it really pissed her off.

Pryor could have written this any of 1000 ways -- she wrote it the way, deliberately, to keep people stupid about Lee, not to inform them of what she found. 


But  PRYOR had those slave ledgers, and letters to bounty hunters. 

She also had sexually explicit letters Lee wrote to various women.

  How the hell was Pryor going to handle that?

Her book, "Reading the Man,"  is the answer to that question. How to  handle the horrors.

 She worked with - physically with -- the Lee family, getting those slave ledgers and letters. Letters to and from bounty hunters, letters to and from various women.

Pryor worked with the approval of the Journal of Southern History, which gave her a very good review for her book.   You have to wonder if they actually read the book, because as careful as she was about HOW she said many of the horrors, she did reveal the horrors, like rape, like torture, like buying women from bounty hunters,  women that the hunters kidnapped from the North, as you will see.


There were 1000 ways for her to reveal all that information.  She could have written it candidly, and shocked the world.

  She did not do that.  She wrote it very carefully -- but give her credit, no one else dared to do anything like she did, though some of the more ghastly information (like Lee turning civilians into slaves during the war) has always been available, and well known by historians, who, almost to a man, refused to ever mention it in a candid way.

But Pryor found much, much -- did we say much -- more than that.

Slave rape was common, as you will see, and the rapist was white.  The victim was black -- and her children were mixed.  Those children were raped when they were old enough, and their children were even more light skinned.

Welcome to history that you never heard about -- but was very real.  

Lee did not do anything others didn't do, except we are told, idiotically, that he was aginst slavery and freed his wife's slaves. Utter nonsense, as you will see, a myth repeated over and over, and never true, nor can it become true by magic.

wer "historians" know that Lee bought women -- even women kidnapped from the North -- from bounty hunters.   We have spent 150 years building up a stupid false myth about a man who never existed.

Lee existed -- but he was nothing like we were told.  And we have proof, in his own slave ledgers, his own dirty letters (yes, he wrote dirty letters) and his own letters to/ from bounty hunters.


Harper's Weekly, during the Civil War, reported matter of factly on Lee's actions in the North.  One story -- verified an not in dispute whatsoever. Lee ordered his men to gather up all the black folks they could find in the North, and have them forced into the South in giant cattle drive like events, and there sold as slaves.

Lee, in other words, had free civilians, in an "enemy" territory, caputured and turned into slaves.

No one knows, by the way, who got the money from those slaves.  I bet I know who. I bet his initials were REL.  And I bet Pryor could tell us, if she wanted. 

But even more -- Lee did that before the Civil War, using bounty hunters. He illegally had his hunters capture women from the North, and Lee turned them into slaves.



See how Lee's name vanishes completely in the retelling.  No Lee name within a mile. of how this story is told now.

Now it's the general term "confederates".  Lee's name is no where even mentioned.
 And - the nature of the hunt, changed.

At the time it was more candidly reported -- Lee's men captured hundred of free blacks in the North.  
Lee had the victims chained  -- hundreds of them apparently, taken south and sold. They were NOT escaped slaves.

Let me repeat that, Lee's captures were NOT just escaped slaves, he had no idea or care if t hey were former slaves or not.  Many of them were not.

 They were anyone Lee's men could find with black skinned.   But now its "capture of escaped slaves".  

Very typical way of  hiding the horrors Lee and other Southern leaders did, routinely. Just a few words, can give you a drastically different impression.  That's  how everything seem to be, about Lee.   Pryor was not about to go candid. 



Though Pryor is maddenly Orwellian in the telling, there are dozens of stunning things in Lee's personal papers.

One quick example -- Lee's orders to his soldiers to shoot other Confederate soldiers who ran during battle.   

Bet you never heard that, in your entire life.   That Lee had standing orders to his men to shoot other Confederate soldiers if they ran during battle.

Do you know who else did that? Pryor won't tell you -- but the answer is Stalin.

The whole myth of Southern leader's honor follows this path.  When you get the facts, they are ugly, violent, and salacious -- slavery was about power and rape.  

No one wants to think of Lee and other Southern heroes involved in torture and rape, but they were, and Lee's own letters, and slave ledgers, proof that.

Another --Lee's letter that many people use to "prove" he was anti slavery, is actually a tenacious defense of not just slavery, but the torture (painful discipline as Lee calls it) they must endure.

Slavery was "of God" and a "spiritual liberty".

Slavery was LIBERTY.  Orwell much?  Jeff Davis said same thing -- liberty is the right to enslave blacks.

That's how crazy things got -- and were.  But we are not told any of that. 

Lee wrote that it was yes evil -- for men to try to end it.  God would end it, in "His" time, he told his wife.

Abolitionist, he told her in another letter, are trying to destroy the "AMERICAN CHURCH".

Lee wrote dirty letters, too, sexually explicit letters, to various women, for decades. Pryor is careful about those too, and won't show them.  Given how vile Lee's actions were, hard telling how sexually explicit Lee was, Pryor is not exactly candid about anything.



No one can just enslave, torture, rape, sell children, whip, pay bounty hunters, etc etc, without some kind of mental gymnastics.

Somehow, some way, you have to justify things.  Slavery was always -- always always -- justified in extreme terms, because it was extreme itself. 

So people, like Lee -- and everyone else -- used religion. God intended. It was in the bible. We are doing the will of God.

Lee even claimed he is the one that suffered for doing God's will -- the slave was lucky. That's how they had to see it, in their heads.

And that's the kind of crap he would tell his wife.  These letters we have that -- in a sentence or two -- SEEM to be against slavery, are to his wife.  Read the whole letter, however, and it's quite the opposite, very much a justification for slavery and torture.

His wife bought it. 

Nothing unusual in Lee's defense of slavery -- but the torture thing, defending the torture of slaves, was usual.  

It's impossible to tell now, but apparently Lee wrote that letter to explain to his wife why he had slaves whipped.  And he did not use his own words.

Lee came in as almost a "step" slave owner -- and took over the torture of slaves. Yes, it was torture. If you want someone to write Lee took over "management" of the slaves, fine. But he took over their torture -- factually, he did.   And that apparently created a huge problem for the slaves, who started to escape, when Lee took over, and used torture.

Lee copied those words, almost verbatim, from a book published a few years prior, by Daniel Webster.  Either Lee had that passage in front of him, or he memorized those pages, in an artful explanation of torture of slaves.   Daniel Webster was not defending torture, but the words happened to work for Lee, so he used them. 

Pryor managed to get much information about Lee's tortures, purchase of kidnapped women, and more, into  a book that is overall very flattering to Lee? 

 So flattering, the Journal of Southern History gave it a thumbs up, so to speak.

Pryor did it this way -- very careful euphemisms for torture, for rape, for kidnapping, for bounty hunters.  But she did get it in. 



Elizabeth Pryor.  Scholar. Lee devotee.

Pryor is the ONLY person ever allowed to study Lee's slave ledgers and bounty hunter letters, at length, that we know of. 

She refused to call them "slave ledgers".   She called them "monthly account books".

She was very careful how she related the  horrors -- but she got them in, though in Orwellian double speak.





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.



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.

Why not just call them slave ledgers? Does anyone believe he did not use slave ledgers? Of course he did. And she had them in her  hands.

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. 


 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.




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.

There was no honor in torture, in buying women from bounty hunters. Yet Lee did that. Willingly. Even eagerly.  

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.


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.



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. 



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".

My favorite -- "Lee now sits at the right hand of his Lord, in heaven, Christ."


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?


The most basic fact of history is -- you only know what you are told.  Garbage in- garbage out.



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?



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.


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


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.




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.   





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.


So Sorry, We will send you back immediately?
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.



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.




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". 


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?

That's right, Lee wrote that "pain is necessary for their instruction".   But more than write it, he lived that.  And much more.  God "knew and intended"  that slaves "endure painful discipline (torture)."



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.