Monday, September 10, 2012

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


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



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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not make that clear?

Pryor she doesn't want to shock you.     




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

Nor does she use the term "dirty letters".

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do we pretend otherwise? 

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

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

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




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

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

They chose wisely,  the Lee family did. 

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

To various women. 

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

Did Lee know that? Hell yes, he knew.

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

Pryor does tell us Lee even had at least one slave girl tortured that his regular overseer refused to whip.

You don't know it, but in three newspapers BEFORE the civil war, Lee is shown to have girls tortured, and the only reason it made the paper, is because the girls were so young, that the overseer refused. Absolutely refused to do it.

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

That was in newspapers at the time.

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

Pryor found confirmation.

Where was that confirmation?

In Lee's own hand written slave ledgers.

See now, what her problem was?


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


When are rapes "Dalliances" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Pryor makes nothing clear that is  horrible, about Lee.

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

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

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

She seemed torn to reveal as much as she did.


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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

Yeah yeah, you saw the movies.  Your history teacher emphatically told you Lee "hated" slavery.

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

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

See below. 

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

150 years of bullshit is enough. 

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



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


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

Who verified the witnesses?  Good question -- as you will see, Lee did.  Pryor found, and reported as cleverly as she could, evidence in Lee's own slave ledgers of payments to the men mentioned in the newspapers, that Lee paid that day.

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

If that were not enough, Lee actually defended the torture of slaves -- calling pain "necessary"   and that God "intended and knew"  slaves should feel "painful discipline".


Lee with and without Orwellian double speak.  

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

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

Because slave owners, just like everyone else  (you and me, too) need to justify their greed, avarice, and lust in some way that makes it sound lovely, altruistic and Godly.

That's not kinda what  happened, not sorta, that is exactly what happened, when slave owners, like Lee, explained slavery. 


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

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

None of that material about Lee ever surfaced -- - over 200 biographies, too many articles in "scholarly" journals to count.

Pryor is not out to smear Lee -- Lord knows, she could have. In fact, her goal is to keep his halo upon his head, keep the Lee family happy (she worked with the Lee family, literally side by side) and, likely, hope the Virginia Historical Society didn't trash her.  

Pryor reveals -- oh so carefully -- stunning horrors, and she calls them horrors at one point. But as you will see, Pryor was the artful dodger, the clever defense attorney, in ever page.

Still, Orwellian or not, clever or not, what Pryor revealed was stunning.  No, she didn't tell us the name of his chicken.  She was too busy revealing details, but in an Orwellian bit of deception.  What  use is language, as the scribe said, if you can't fool the hell out of people?


Not for Lee.

This will seem preposterous if you still think Lee didn't have slaves, but actually, Lee had slave girls whipped, that were too young for his regular overseer to whip.

And Pryor tells you.  There are thousands of way to to tell you that, she chose the least shocking.

According to newspapers at the time, Lee's torture of slave girls -- including screaming at a girl the entire time he  had her tortured.   

Not just one paper -- but three 1, 2, 3 -- newspapers at the time, Lee made the paper because the regular overseer refused to whip a girl, because she was too young.

Whipping a slave girl did not make the paper, but whipping a slave girl in front of dozens of others, after your own overseer refuses, because she is too young, did make three papers.

Pryor is so careful about how she reveals this, you can read her book and not grasp what the hell she is talking about.   In fact, she tries to spin this as the girls fault.  

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

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

Actually Lee's "cross cultural" communication skills were torture. Yes, they were. Threats, and torture. She could have spelled that out for you, if she wanted.

She didn't want to. 

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

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

Alan Nolan, who also praised Lee, said we need to start over, 20 years ago. He had  no idea  how right he was.  He did point out that the unrelenting flattery about Lee was not based on actual scholarship.  He said we needed to start over, before Pryor's book.

And he never had a clue Lee's slave ledgers and dirty letters existed.

Historians have known about those newspapers reporting the tortures of the young girls,  they never told you. The few that even referred to them at all, dismissed them because one of the three said Lee himself did the whipping, the other two said he had the girl that was too young, whipped by someone else.

So what?   The newspaper accounts were all surprisingly alike in every major detail.   A reporter got one of the details differently, so all three reports are not believable?

Now, with Pryor actually confirming that Lee's own slave legers (er -- account books) verified those dates and payments to those men, Pryor herself verifies Lee did have slave girls whipped that were too young to whip, that his overseer did refuse, and Lee paid someone else to whip the girl.

Those reports also showed OTHER tortures Lee used on the girl, and how he taunted her before the torture.

No, Pryor could not verify what Lee said to the girl -- Lee did not write that down, apparently, in his slave ledgers.  But he wrote down plenty.

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


Pryor found information  from Lee himself, in his own handwriting, that confirm those reports, including names, payments on those dates, for a man to whip those exact slaves.    And if that were not enough, after the war, reporters found and interviewed slaves that were there.

So no, it was NOT just some  newspapers at the time.   It was Lee's own slave ledgers confirming what the papers reported.

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

Pryor  had more.  She had over 1000 letters, some of them sexual in nature. Yes, Lee wrote sexually explicit letters to woman  for decades -- not to his wife, but to other women.


Lee kept slave ledgers -- apparently very specific and detailed slave  ledgers.  

Pryor held in her  hands those slave ledgers (which she calls "account books")  and thousands, yes thousands, of letters to and from him, including sexually explicit letters to various women, that he wrote for decades.

But Pryor refuses to call them slave ledgers.  Account books sound better -- right? From those slave ledgers, er, account books, Pryor saw the prices Lee paid to bounty hunters. We know because she told us how much Lee paid, kinda.

Why not show us  pictures of those pages?    Show us the prices?  Show us the name of the 12 year old girl he bought, and what he paid.

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


why she showed that drawing, instead of picture of his prices, or his sexually explicit letters?

Because a picture is worth a thousand words, and Pryor is not about to trash Lee.  She writes about the horrors, rapes, and tortures, very carefully, Orwellian even.

She  is  not going to make it too clear that Lee had slave girls tortured, though it is in there, read her closely.

She could have, she could put drawings -- maybe pictures - of the girl tortured that way, or shown the number of girls or men he had whipped, he kept very detailed records.  We don't know for sure what  his records showed, but Pryor is, she had them and studied them, exhaustively.

Did he torture just a few?   No. Because later, Pryor admits that whipping was Lee's "preferred" method of discipline -- so there were other methods too.   What were those other methods?  Why not spit it out?


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

No, something in Lee's hand written letters told her, or his slave ledgers. SOmething. She did not dream it up.

So give her props for even saying that much - but she claims that whipping post was a "silent witness" to the slaves.

No, we find out Lee had girls tortured, and screamed at them during their torture, as you will see. In fact, the girl we know he had tortured, was too young for his regular overseer to whip!!   That's right, Lee hired someone else to whip this girl because she was so young, the regular guy refused to whip her. 

Think that post was "silent"? 

Pryor made sure she said "silent" -- just like she made sure later, she was almost as careful about telling us about the tortures.   Never anything that terrible, on one page, in once careful sentence. 

She does give out glimpses -- but never the full picture.

Even the word  in "A Portrait of Lee" she chose carefully. Not a picture, not a candid look, but a portrait.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if Pryor put drawings of the tortures? The rapes?  The white looking slave girls, being chased?

Of course not, nor should she have.  But she should have been more candid, she could hardly have been less.

Her goal, however, was not to be candid.

So of course she did not put a drawing of Lee screaming at slave girls, or a drawing of the whipping post he had installed.

Pryor put a picture of his drawing of a pump.

It's not amazing that Pryor wrote so carefully.  It's amazing she got in, as much as she did.



Lee never wrote he was against slavery -- in fact, the letter that "scholars" often show, Lee justified slavery and the torture of slavery, tenaciously, though in velvet gloves.

Yes, Lee did write that slavery was a political and moral evil -- but read the rest of his letter!!   Slavery is a religious liberty, and God intended slaves to "feel painful discipline."

Pain, Lee wrote, was "necessary for their instruction".

Remember, this is in a letter that "scholars" claimed proved he was against slavery.  

Wait till you see what's in Lee's letters that Pryor found -- his sexually explicit letters, his letters to and from bounty hunters.



His wife owned  those slaves, and when Lee took over, he started having them whipped. Yes, he did.  He had  whipping post installed, and used it.

In fact, Pryor writes later in the book that whipping was Lee's "preferred" discipline.   Artfully, she avoids detailing too much  his full range of torture, which included salt and screaming at slaves during their torture.

Yes, according to three newspapers at the time -- and verified in Lee's own papers -- Lee had girls tortured.   In the case that made the paper, he had a girl tortured, who the overseer refused to whip.
Thats right -- his overseer REFUSED Lee's order to whip one girl, because she was too young.  

Lee had her whipped anyway, and screamed at her during her torture.  Before the torture, he told her she would never forget the lesson he was about to give her.   

How do we know those newspapers didn't make it up?  Because Lee wrote about those details-- Pryor wont show us, but she confirms the details match the newspaper accounts. 

And further, after the war, reporters at Arlington asked former slaves about those reports in newspapers, and the former slaves confirmed it.

But the big confirmation, is Lee's own handwritten papers.



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

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

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

No one told you that, did they?   When they discuss Lee, his father magically becomes this wonderful guy. Uh, not so much. Not only was he hanging slave girls, he was notorious for fraud -- he would sell a bunch of slaves, help them escape, and sell them again.

If the slaves where caught and tortured -- as some no doubt were -- Lee got his money.  And money is what his father wanted, money and status.


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

She means OWN SLAVES, have a big plantation.  His father lost their slave plantation, and died, after being tortured by men he had defrauded. 

Lee wanted to get that fame back, that his father had, once.

By "Planter"  Pryor covered up this -- Lee always wanted to be famous and have a huge slave plantation, where slaves were sold, traded, children sold, and you could make a great living off human flesh.  

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

Even his basic occupation is so vile, we now have to say "planter".  But slave owner who got wealth and status from trading and working humans, who could be and were tortured, is what Lee was all about.

When Lee left the military, as he did several time, it was to "manage" the "plantation."  In real language, that is, he sold the problem slaves, terrorized those who needed to be terrorized, and squeezed more work out of the lot of them.

That's what managing a slave plantation was.  It was no arranging the veggies in the road side stand.


Lee, in his famous letter, also bluntly claimed slavery was a "religious liberty"  and that slaves were lucky to be slaves.   Mostly, Lee told his wife (as many slave owners did) that we should not question GOD.  God intended slavery, God will end it, in "His time".  

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

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

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

Yeah, Lee.  That guy. 

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

And yes, he bought slaves. He also bought people he turned into slaves -- watch Pryor handle that one.

But all that is unremarkable, compared to what he wrote about slave girls. About slave sales. About, and to, bounty hunters.

Yes, Pryor should have, and could have, given us candid information, even actual photos of his slave ledgers, page by page, and his sexual letters.

But the most interesting for her to show, would have been the letters to and from his bounty hunters.


The Union Army collected Lee's personal belongings, and stored them giving them back to the family after the war.

Historians knew about the two trunks of papers -- seen below.  But now one was allowed to study them, at length.

Everyone assumed that those letters (slave ledgers too) would be like the stuff we learned about Lee from books written after the Civil War.

Would the two trunks of papers confirm "historians" such as Douglas Southall Freeman, a prize winning biographer, who wrote extensively about Lee?

Not so much.

In fact, to be blunt, not at all.


 Elizabeth Pryor, a Lee devotee, who had access to his dirty letters and slave ledgers, suggested the mixed race children at Lee's slave plantation came from "dalliances".

That's a metaphor for her approach to nearly everthing, early in the book. SHe begins, as most flattering biographies do, comparing Lee to Richard the Lionhearted.

That's not a stretch -- other biographers, seriously, have compared him with Jesus Christ, claiming with a straight face, in total self confidence, that Lee "now sits at the right hand of Christ his Lord" 

Lee was not just the best soldier in history -- he was "by far" the best Christian in US history, said biographer Douglas Freeman. 

Books after Lee's death essentially competed, in 1880's and 1890s, to flatter Lee, more than the other authors.   


Since we only know what we are told -- and we were not at Lee's slave barn, we did not talk to his bounty hunters, or slaves, or even know he wrote sexually explicit letters to various women, his entire life.

There was  never a group of historians claiming Lee had girls tortured, and spent extra for certain girls, and wrote sexually explicit letters.

 We did know Lee turned free people into slaves, during the Civil War, by ordering the capture of free blacks in the North.  He had those poor souls chained, and taken South, and sold as slaves. Yes, we knew that.

But no one had a narrative of his torture, rape, cruelty, by him and others, at Arlington.  So, how would we know?

We depend on the veracity and honesty of "historians".  Big mistake, it turns out, where Lee is concerned. 

We are always told  -- so we assume it's true -- that Lee was "a man of God".   In fact, Pulitzer Prize Winner Douglas Southall Freeman, insisted Lee "had no faults to probe"  and "sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord"

Turns out nothing -- and I mean nothing -- was and is too goofy to attribute to Lee.  

Not just chaste, Freeman insisted, but the most chaste. Not just kind, but the most kind.  Not just devout, but the most devout. Page after page of drivel.


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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Pryor was not out to destroy Lee's status as "the Greatest Christian by far" -- (Lee was the best soldier in history, Freeman told us, but "by far" a better Christian).

Well, do the most devout Christians really pay for slave girls? Then have them tortured -- and torture is the right word.   Do they really pay extra for certain girls?  Why would Lee pay so much extra for girls of a certain age, as apparently he did, per his slave ledgers.


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

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




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

She actually wrote that.

Yeah, Lee had slave girls whipped, and more.  But oh, that was just a result of poor cross cultural communication!!

In fact, Pyror's book is more of a study on how clever one person can be, when trying to white wash torture, rape, and cruelty. 

No this is not overstated. Lee, as you will see, (and Pryor reluctantly admits) was an ususually cruel slave owner.  He was not moderate.  

The myth of a reluctant slave owner, or a guy who didn't own any slaves, is total bullshit. Not sorta, not kinda, not in a way.

The evidence -- Lee's own hand written letters and slave ledgers -- just blow away the bullshit.   

Pryor should show them, of course.  But she won't.   She isn't about to.  She studied them -- at length.  And her book about them is called "Reading the Man".

If only for the girls Lee had tortured -- that should be enough for Pryor to be candid, and not use Orwellian double speak. It is, after all, 150 years, no one need be offended at this truth.  Let's get the truth out, ugly or not.

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

Rape. At Arlington. Common. 

Not dalliances, but night time plunder of the women's shacks at night, the white  man literally picking whatever woman he wanted.  Whatever age.  Whatever he wanted. 

But but but -- those were men of GOD, right?   You'll soon see this "God game" slave owners played, including Lee. 

Welcome to history, not bullshit. Enough f-ing bullshit already. 


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


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

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

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


Yeah, you thought slavery some nice thing, for Jesus.   Lee claimed he did it for the Lord, like the others too, claimed.

No one ever said "Oh yeah, I like me some slave girls, I buy em, whip em, have my fun with them. They work, they make me money, they have babies and I sell them -- good life!"

No one ever was candid about why they had slaves.

Do you think Lee would be the first?


Apparently  Lee was quite into slavery, because he left the military several times to "manage" the plantation.   

 In fact, per his papers, it's clear Lee never freed anyone that was worth money to him.  Pryor shows Lee  resisted three different court orders to free the slaves per the will.

But he also owned slaves OUTSIDE the will.  

Pryor is artful about fleeing from even that -- she claimed Lee "always wanted to be a planter".   Planter?   She is being Orwellian. He always wanted to own s big slave plantation.  That's what she means by "planter".

Lee married a rather ugly woman to get it.  Yes, he did.  She owned the largest slave plantation in Virginia, with the biggest mansion.

Lee's sexually explicit letters -- which he wrote for decades, to various women  - are pretty good indication  Lee was not keeping his loving at  home. How many women do you write sexually explicit letters too, for decades?

Lee's father owned a large plantation too, but he he whored and drank it away.  He was a crook. Did you know that?   He would sell slaves to someone, then help them escape, and sell them again.

Lee's father had a slave girl hung,  apparently for fighting back against rape.  She knocked a white man down -- no one even bothered to record why she would do that. She knocked a white man down.

Lee's father decided the penalty for that was death -- he had her hung.

Hard telling the story behind that one, no one bothered to even write fine print about it.

Lee's slave ledgers show  he paid much more for slave girls, and was obsessed with capture of escaped girls.   Now, why would Lee pay so much more for girls? Why get obsessed with escaped girls?

Who pays much more for certain girls?

Really who?  Pull your head out of your ass, and think. Lee paid much higher prices for certain girls -- do you think he was stupid? Had no reason to pay 600% higher prices for certain girls?

Maybe he liked to hear them sing?  Maybe he liked to talk about the bible to them? Uh - not likely.  

Go on, take your time. You will figure it out.




Over half the slaves Lee owned (yes he owned slaves, and bought more) were lighter skinned. Some white looking girls.  Lee himself wrote about girls that could pass for white.

Some slave girls, we don't know how many,  looked white -- which means, they WERE white. 

Skin tone is a one of over 300,000 DNA traits.  There is no DNA trait by itself for "white person".  

 White looking girls, that Lee owned, were white girls. 

If a girl looked white, she was white. But Lee bought them anyway, enslaved them anyway.  Try to grasp that.

What do you think happens when a very light skinned baby is born?

Do you think the slave owner, like Lee, sees that and says "LORDY this child is white and I free her now, in the name of Jesus".

Bullshit -- light skinned girls sold for MORE at  auction, did you know that?

Yes they did, lighter skinned women sold for more  at auction, men would by them for sex slaves -- yes -- and whore house operators bought them.

I know, you won't want to think of slave owners as horney bastards buying women to rape, but they sure as hell did.

Since Lee owned more light skinned slaves than anyone we know off -- more mulatto slaves -- it's quite possible, in fact likely, that some of "his girls" ended up in New Orleans or Memphis, were it seems the whore houses were.



Pryor found the idea of white looking slave girls being raped, or whipped for trying to escape (as they were) was a "horror".  

Whites were "increasingly enslaving other whites."

Bet you didn't know that. Bet you had no clue that was an issue -- and Lincoln spoke of it.  His political enemies said blacks should be enslaved because freedom meant mixing races.

Lincoln pointed out, the races mixed plenty from slavery.  

 Who do you think fathered all those mulatto slaves? Casper?


One of Lee's light skinned -- white looking - slave girls.
Pryor COULD tell you how much Lee sold her for.
She had that information. 

"and others"

Pryor's most careful prose

 Lee bought women that were free women, living-in-the-North free.  Yes, blacks were kidnapped in the North, a few miles from Lee's slave plantation.  Lee's hunters caught them,while searching for escaped slaves, and sold them to Lee.

Pryor tells you about that, in her most diplomatic verbiage of the entire book

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

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

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


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

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

Yes, she should have showed the actual paperwork here, the actual letters.

But she decided to go with "and others"  referring to people Lee's bounty hunters found in the North, while looking for escaped slaves.

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

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



Not Lee's slave ledger. 

Oh yeah, you were told Lee didn't own any slaves, right?  That he just "managed" his wife's and he freed them "long before the Civil War".

Turns out, none of that is true.  Lee had slaves all through the civil war.  In fact he had three or four slaves as "body servants" during the war.

And during the war, he was still trying to make money off the slaves he had rented out.


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


Repeating myths
don't make them true 

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

She studied them - her book is about them.   

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



 You weren't at Arlington,  nor was anyone you know. But Lee was -- and he wrote it all down. If he had not, history would show, forever, the bullshit myths.

So it was good, even though this will take a while, for the truth to come out. 

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

Lee was doing as  his father did -- Lee did what got him power and prestige, and he could cover it up with religious sounding bullshit excuses.  So what -- many hundreds, thousands, of people did that.

But why on earth have so many "historians" just repeated the bullshit?  While Pryor's material -- Lee's letters, and slave ledgers -- are a big deal, some of this, the worst of this, was known all along.

Like Lee's use of slaves, and how he had his soldiers turn free people into slaves, during the war.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Glad to report, Pryor's car is fine.  

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

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

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

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

Really.  She wrote that. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about some boooshit  history.

Learn facts -- not myths.





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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Pryor tells us -- in a very clever way  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

Why would he have slave girls chased FOR MONTHS? 

Some of the bills Lee paid, were for the boarding for slave girls at certain jails.  They were caught, but needed to be housed for a period of time.

Why?  Why not just have the girls taken back to Arlington. Pryor never explains that, though likely she would know, from some of the letters.  Did Lee want to be there personally at Arlington, when they got back?

Don't know. 

And more, why pay so much more for young girls?  Could they pick 600% more cotton?

Could a 12 year old girl pick more cotton than a 40 year old male?  There was some reason -- a personal and financial reason -- for Lee to pay more. Why?

Pryor just did not "go there".   But we do know he used slave auctions -- she tells us.  And we do know that attractive girls, light skinned, sold for much more in whore houses., Yes, they did.  Light skinned girls could expect to be sold to men who used them for sex --including to whore houses.  

Pryor knows that dirty side of slavery -- but she was not about to explain any reason Lee may have  had, for paying such higher prices. 

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

Could they read him poetry?  Did you just like their cute dimples?  Pryor told us he paid much more -- so why did she do that, even.  You get the feeling when reading her book for the 2 or 3 time, she wanted to get more out there, on paper.  But she didn't know how.



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

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

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

As you will see from Lee's slave ledgers and dirty letters, Freeman was anything but candid. Page after page -- it's almost  hard to read because every paragraph is a new start of idolitry.  

Lee had "no faults to probe"  said Freeman.  The "greatest Christian by far".  Devout, chaste -- tidy. 

 Freeman's biggest fraud -- his insistance that his slaves loved him "most of all".  Those who knew Lee best, wrote Freeman, "loved him most of all".

He was refering to his slaves. They loved him most of all.

Freeman, really, should be dug  up and slapped.

As Pryor showed, Lee's slaves hated him so much, they risked their lives to escape.  And they tried to escape for a very good reason.  Women tried to escape because of the rapes, and Lee took their children away, or took them away from their children.

The slaves did NOT try to escape, from Arlington, until Lee took over, apparently.  Then the slaves, treated with cruelty, even torture, rebelled.

In fact, Pryor called it rebellion.  She had reason to, though she did not make it clear, other than that brief mention.

Lee even "separated"  families -- which is really a euphamism Pryor used to say, Lee sold the mother, or sold the child.  That was the "family".

There was no family -for males. It was illegal for slaves to know who their father was in some places -- and slave men slept apart from slave women at Arlington.

It was not like they had family huts.  They had huts for the men, and huts for the women.  Pryor knew that, and she could have, should have, told that.

Sorry -- slavery is like that.  Escaped slaves were tortured -- eyes gouged out, some burned, if they fought back and injured a white man, they could be burned to death.

Yes, like the slave that ran away, and was caught. The owner had him  held down, and gouged out his eye.  No, we don't know of any tortures by Lee that cruel, but that was the way you kept  your slaves in line -- burn one to death, tie one up by one leg, upside down, gouge an eye out, whip a girl as you scream at  her, and the others notice.

Slavery would have fell apart, if slaves were not punished, and everyone knew that.

 Slavery can  not begin, Lincoln wrote, or spread, or continue, without violence. It's born in violence, it's spread in violence, and it will die in violence, he wrote to his friend Joshua Speed.

He was right.



Douglas Freeman's father was in Lee's Army.  Why Freeman was so wacko about praising Lee in the most extreme terms possible, we don't know.  Maybe to glorify his father, maybe to sell more books, but the point is, Freeman was full of bullshit.

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

In fact, Freeman had four columns of noble human traits, in the index, and then essentially set out to prove Lee was the MOST chaste, MOST devout, MOST kind MOST this that and the other.

Even the MOST tidy.  His biography tries to show Lee as that.

We don't know if he was the most tidy, but he was NOT the most chaste or kind.  He wrote sexually explicit letters -- fo decades, even after the Civil War, to various women, not his wife.

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

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

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

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

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

Getting off horse in battle for extended silent prayer

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

Yes, it got that silly.  Yes, "historians"  repeated, instead of challenging, that bullshit.

But history is like that, and once things get repeated, they get believed, and the circle continues.  Endlessly.

  But did not the facts support that?



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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



Is this news to you?


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Really, he did. 

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Remember that, if you read her book, and you should read it.  She had to say something. 

She had to say something about those slave ledgers -- so she did. She called them account books.

She had to say something about his torture of slave girls -- so she did.  She claimed it was their fault, it was a law, and Lee was only to blame because of that "cross cultural communication thing".

She had to say something about his bounty hunters -- so she did.

She said Lee paid for "others"  and "might have technically broken the law."

She had to say something about the rapes -- so she did.  She called them dalliances at first, then later rapes were common, but only by quoting a slave using ebonics.  Funny stuff.

If Pryor had stated them plainly, even with the Lee family in person,  she probably would have been escorted off the premises and banned from returning.

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

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

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


Arguably, the Lee myth began in the Civil War when newspaper editors, especially in Richmond, had little but contempt for Jeff Davis.  

Anything bad happened, seemed to be Jeff Davis fault.  Anything good happened, seemed to be Lee's brilliance.  

But whatever caused it -- and the South needed heroes -- it grew, and grew.   The Myth exploded about 30 to 40 years after the Civil Warm when suddenly folks, especially in the South, wanted to read anything that praised their  aging or departed soldiers, and leaders. 

No one in the North was writing anything defamatory or even insulting about Southern leaders, or the war.   As Shelby Foote noted, people in the South were preoccupied with the war -- and still were 100 years later.  They were preocumpied, he said, because the lost.

Not really, and Foote knew that.  They were preoccupied because their parents and grandparents had tortured, raped, and enslaved and then fought a war to spread slavery.   

Yes - to spread slavery.

That did not sit on the mind well.  In fact, as slavery became the foul idea it is now, no one in the South would even admit the war was about slavery.

Nor were their leaders pro slavery.  

Writers competed to praise the soldiers, especially Lee, more than the other writers.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Lee "historians" like Freeman sure aren't going to tell you that. Freeman came up with the bullshit excuse about King of Spades.  It was repeated, ever since, and was never true.