Monday, September 10, 2012


under construction 
good luck making sense of this.
Im "rearranging"  and Im terrible at this.

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

 Harper's Weekly, during the Civil War, reported Lee's Army  rounded up hundreds of free blacks in the North, and shipped them South, to be sold as slaves. The art work above, is from Harpers.

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.

 Lee did this before the war too -- with bounty hunters.


1000 ways to leave your lover.

10,000 ways to tell you about torture of young girls.




HE     WROTE     IT     DOWN  

  "It's life's illusions I recall..."   


    SO ARE FACTS    



"Who did what, to whom, is real history.  

Everything else is bullshit.  "

Lee didn't own slaves

Lee freed all his wife's slaves.

Lee prayed with a black woman, when no one else would.

Lee got or his horse and -- during battle, as bombs blew up around him, with all his officers, listened to a long prayer.

Lee only cared about saving souls for Christ.

Lee was a planter.

Lee's men adored him.

Lee was the "most kind, and chaste man" of his era.

Lee was against slavery.

Lee had no faults to probe.

Lee's slaves loved him. They refused to leave when he freed them.

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

That's what the books about him say.

Now -- what does Lee say???

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 didn't burn them.  He would have, if he could have,  but they still exist.  
Pryor was clearly on "Lee's side". She was not out to destroy the myth. But she did have those papers, in her hands.   

You can, and many have, read her book, and come to the conclusion Lee was "more complex than we thought."  You may hardly notice his torture of slave girls, his purchase of women from bounty hunters, and a dozen other stunning things.   

Pryor could have written this book in any of 10,000 ways.  She chose the way that shocked the least, and whatever was shocking, she was careful as she could be.





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.   

But Lee was no ordinary slave owner -- yes, he owned slaves, AND he managed his wife's. In fact, as Lee's own papers show, he simply disobeyed and or ignored court orders to free his wife's slaves -- three times.

Yes, Pryor should show us the slave ledgers, and all the letters. But that is not up to her -- the family have them.  They just let her study them.

These were not copies -- or reprints, or what someone else said.  This was Lee's own letters to and from folks.  These were his OWN slave ledgers.

Pryor knew things -- things no one had seen on paper for 150 years.

 The truth came flooding in.  It had to be stunning.


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

Your understanding of history is only as valid as what you have been told. If someone tells you endless myths about bravery, courage, honor, and nothing about their tortures, cowardice, and slave hunters, how would you know?

Lee had already used bounty hunters -- instead of soldiers --  before the Civil War.    Lee regularly employed bounty hunters -- the letters to and from them still exist.  Pryor found, in those letters, information about those captures, and how Lee paid for those escaped slaves, and their torture (yes, Lee had escaped slaves tortured, we won't use a euphemism) .   But more amazing, Lee paid the hunters for "others".  Pryor chose to be coy.  He paid for "others".

 Other what? Other ducks?   No. It had to be other humans.  He paid for the escaped slaves -- and OTHERS.

As you will see, Pryor relates everything that's horrific, that would shock you to read it today, in a delicate way, in her book "Reading the Man." Yes, she is clever how she tells us -- but no one else even told us he paid bounty hunters at all.  

Yes, they caught run away slaves -- but he paid the for "others"  too.


Now see how Lee's name disappears from the story.  Not only is Lee's name erased -- the nature of the hunt, changed.

 Slave hunt?

Hardly. They grabbed anyone black.

Albert WHO? Albert Jenkins?   What the hell happened to Robert E Lee --  Jenkins was doing what Lee ordered.  They made sure, apparently, NOT to name Lee, but some guy you never heard of-- Jenkins. 

Did that "historian" lie?  There was a guy name Jenkins. He did go North. He did round up escaped slaves.  But he worked under Robert E Lee.  And he rounded up anyone with black skin he or his soldiers could find.

Leave a few details out, did ya?

Pryor is not the only "historian" to make sure Lee's name was not in the sentence or page, or even chapter, about the horrific things he did.  And yes, Lee ordered this. 

Robert E Lee, therefore, is the only person in US history to attack civilians, including children, and turn them into slaves. Yes, he turned people into slaves.  During the war he turned people into slaves, but he  had already done that, before the war, too.

Not sorta. Not kinda. Not in a way. That is what happened.

In the telling now -- it was "Confederates"  and it was about "escaped slaves".

Orwell much? Children, women, born in the North, they were grabbed. They were chained.  They were driven South.  

Notice the "historian" who told of this, did not mention Lee's name, anywhere.  From her, no one could possibly know Lee ordered it.   It would be impossible -- not just difficult -- to know what Lee did, to who, by this "historian".

Pryor does that same thing-- just more often.


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.


 Lee didn't have Go Pro video cameras on top of  his head.

Lee did, however, have slave ledgers.  He did, however, write letters to, and get letters from, bounty hunters. Pryor mentioned a stunning number -- more than 1,000 letters.


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?  Lee's slaves did not FULLY AGREE with his "theory" of labor management?

 Oh God, the stupidity never ends.




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?  

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 -- blah blah - that she would ALSO later write about his tortures of the slave girl, too young to whip?

Pryor had to have emotional whip lash.

In his ledgers, Lee himself  and names, dates, prices  he paid, that "undoubtedly" confirm the basic story.

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. 

No, Pryor would not show the parts of the slave ledgers where he confirmed the newspaper reports.  She never would even call them slave ledgers, or show you any part of any letter or slave ledger.

You can bet your bippy she did not want to verify those newspaper reports, from before the Civil War, about Lee's stunning torture of young slave girls.  

No one else even told you of those newspaper reports...... 

Lee.  Tortured. Slave. Girls.  Girls so young, his regular overseer refused.

Let that sink in.

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

I wonder if they actually read every word, or just skimmed it. Seriously.Because if you read every word, holy shit.

But if you skim it, you can easily miss much of this.

Rather like MSG in a Chinese restaurant, Pryor sprinkles the horrors, a bit here, a bit there, in a way you may hardly notice.


Was it sneaky to let  just one person see them, and tell us about them in a careful way, like a grandchild reporting on the diary of a famous grandfather, who turns out to be a reprobate?

Yes sneaky. But they did  not have to do that. They could have just not let anyone see them, or burn them.

Remember, the Lee family are mini-Gods in Virginia.  The Virginia Historical Society was in on this, too. They actually exist to honor Robert E Lee. Yes, that's what they do.   

They would not be human, if they just threw all their status away, all the fame, all the glory, and put out blunt horrible news about Lee's tortures in a graphic way.

And it's probable-- they had no idea of the horrors in the paperwork,  To get that horror out, you have to correlate the letters to his slave ledges, and match that up to the newspaper accounts, and really know the contents of thousand or more letters.,

Do you think they studied all those letters in a systematic way?  I don't.  But who knows.


Monthly account books had the prices he paid, the person he paid, because Pryor could write about that information.  She got that information from him, she did not get it from a duck.

She  had a plethora of information, so complete, she could find certain payments to certain men on certain days, and for what reason.  She could tell us when he installed a whipping post, and how much  he paid for girls - vs men -- to his bounty hunters.

She calls them "account books"  but those are slave ledger account books. And she only mentioned that once. Why not just say she had his slave ledgers?

Because that's too obvious.  Then someone might want to see them.

So Robert E Lee was against slavery?  Really?  Pryor tells us Lee's biggest problem was escaped slaves!   If you are against slavery -- you don't even have slaves. And you sure as hell don't send bounty hunters after them.

If  Lee  was against slavery,  why did he buy more -- from bounty hunters?   Why did Lee's pay bounty hunters more money for women -- girls - about 14 years old?     Pryor even tells us Lee ignored repeated court orders to free the slaves, and appealed their orders. Apparently he kept them until they were worthless to him, anyway.   Pryor does not say that, but he never gave up anything, it seems, which profited him.  



Pryor had a choice -- how she would tell you the horrors. Yes, she calls them horrors, and they were.  Only, Pryor reserves that word "horror" for when she discovered Lee owned white looking women, or so close to white, they might pass for white.  Yes he did. 

 That, to Pryor, was a horror. Whites, she wrote "were enslaving other whites".

Whites were enslaving other whites?  Very common trick in her book -- she did not put the name LEE in that sentence.  Over and over she does that.

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".

Who the hell do you think she was writing about, who do you think she had the papers from -- LEE.   And read her very closely, yes it is Lee.

But Pryor could write "Whites were enslaving other whites"  and the Lee family would smile -- she didn't put LEE's name in that sentence, or in the page even.  Nice trick.

And it worked.   This is not a book about slave owners, its about Lee. You have to flip back and forth - who is she talking about?    She does not make anything clear when she is talking about Lee's own horrific behavior.   She admits to "discipline" and even that "rape was common at Arlington"  and all kinds of things.  




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".    

What did Pryor find, that at one point, apparently made her furious -- whites were enslaving other whites?  And rapes were common?

That's what she wrote. She stopped far short of even suggesting Lee himself raped anyone.  But someone -- a group of white men -- were raping slaves at Arlington. Those were not dalliances. 







Plus, of course, no one mentions Lee's defense of "painful discipline" slaves must endure, or gives any hint Lee had escaped slaves tortured, including younger females.

 It is Pryor, however, who held in her hands his slave ledgers showing payments to bounty hunter for blacks that were in the North, that were NOT escaped anything, not former slaves.   She could have made that clear. She could have given us the names, dates, and prices Lee paid.

She did quite the opposite -- just saying "and others"  when discussing in the most vague terms possible, about Lee's capture of escaped slaves via bounty hunters.  Lee paid for "others" too.

Other what?  Other ducks?  

They were humans --and apparently they were women, because Lee seem to pay much higher prices for women, but who they were, their names, their prices, are still in Lee's slave ledgers.   It will likely be at least another 150 years before anyone sees them again, if ever.

So Sorry, We will send you back immediately?

No, Lee did not apologize and send them back.  We have no idea from Pryor what the exact communication was -- did he agree on a price before he sent the hunters North? Was this an accident? Did those blacks insist they were not escaped slaves?  Did Lee write any mention of that in his many letters?  Did anyone mention that TO Lee?   Pryor had 10,000 letters!   All kinds of interesting things would be in there, many details.    If Pryor would show the letters and ledgers, we could see for ourselves how much he paid for them, what their names were, and a description, that Lee no doubt included.

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?   Not even a word about the names of the victims.  In her narrative, Lee becomes the victim.

And what the hell "time consuming paper works'  is she yapping about?  There were forms, to be filled out in triplicate, and some kind of fee and notary for kidnapping free folks and turning them into slaves? Hell no -- but Pryor does her best to not show the free blacks, turned into slaves, as the victim. No, no no. Lee was the victim of that "time consuming paperwork"

This is not just Pryor's art.   The same kind of double speak BS is rife in slave apologist bullshit, and in the biographies of men like Lee and Jeff Davis. 


Bullshit, they were after anyone with black skin.  And Lee is the guy that ordered it.  Why not say such things plainly.  It was known then.  

Pryor found evidence of this -- in his own slave ledgers, payments for "others".   Watch how cleverly she presents that information; at least she presents it, cleverly or otherwise.

Instead, Pryor starts her book with a lofty and rather typical praise of Lee, and she compares him to Richard the Lionhearted (who probably did his own horrible things).

Her most artful dodge, rhetorically, her most Orwellian bit of BS, was about slave rape, and buying "others".  Lee paid bounty hunter for "others"  -- Lee paid bounty hunters even if they returned from the North with kidnapped women, that were never  his slaves, or anyone slaves.  The "Fugative Slave Act"  resulted in bounty hunters (which Lee used often) grabbing black folks who were born in the North, and had never even been to the South, until bounty hunters grabbed them.

Other "historians" have  claimed Lee could not be compared to anyone -- seriously.  He was "by far the best Christian"  and now "sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord" in heaven.  Seriously, it gets really goofy about Lee, when you read those amazing biographies of him, closely.  

Pryor was not out to insult or taunt the Lee family, or even surprise them.  

So, Pryor used Orwellian double speak and euphamisms -- the worse the horror she found, the more energetic her use of double speak.   But -- she does show, in her own way, what Lee did, carefully or otherwise.

No one else has ever dare to do, even this much.



Pryor would not even call any of Lee's papers, "slave ledgers" -- but clearly she had those, because she could tell the dates, prices, and names, including names of slaves Lee sold at slave auction.  Do you think he wrote that kind of thing on a napkin?

Pryor artfully refers to them as "monthly account books" -- which sounds much less horrible. To say she had his slave ledgers, rational people would say "Okay show them".

So she called them "monthly account books".

Her whole book is like that -- but no one else even told us that much.

Pryor had those papers in her hands.  His slave ledgers, his letters to and from bounty hunters, his payments for "others".   Even his sexually explicit letters to various women -- which he wrote, amazingly, for decades.  No, he did not write sexually explicit letter to his wife- - he wrote religious sounding bullshit to her.

He wrote sexually suggestive and explicit letters to various women.   

But like all this stunning, Pryor is careful how she relates this.  Turns out, the sexually explicit letters are the lest stunning thing in his papers.  The most stunning thing might be, Lee paid bounty hunters for women they kidnapped in the North.  Yes, sounds like it can't be true.  It's true.  And when you understand the times, and how slave owners worked, how bounty hunters worked, it's really not surprising at all.

If anything in Pryor's artful book is correct, that makes "historian" Douglas Southall Freeman a lunatic lying piece of shit.  Stripped of it's glitter, compare what Pryor found, to what Freeman made up.  You can't square this circle.  


While Elizabeth Pryor's book is extremely flattering on the surface, about Lee -- get a look at her clever inserted and framed "details."


In an age when "historians"  pride themselves on learning the name of Lee's pet chicken (Pearl) you would think we knew everything possible about Lee.

Oh hell no.  We really should start over, because the Myth of Lee, as you will see, is bullshit nonsense, at best.

Pryor is careful, to Orwellian double speak, how she relates this info. But she does relate it. 

There was a reason Lee paid much higher prices for certain girls. He was not stupid.  Do you think he paid 600% higher prices for certain girls, so he could talk bridge construction with them?   Maybe he liked their singing voice?

Why pay much more for certain slave girls capture?   Read her closely, seems one of these escaped girls was light skinned.  He did own a high number of light skinned girls -- one could "pass for white" .

If you can PASS for white, you are white.  

There is no DNA  to identify a Negro --just the physical characteristics.  Apparently, some of Lee's female slaves did not look like the others. But over 50%- - over 50%  -- were "mulatto". 

No one would have been surprised of this at the time, though Lee owned a far larger % of mulatto slaves that others. 

  Gee, the things they "forgot" to mention in your history class. 


Lee as a "kind" or "reluctant"  slave owner is of the myth that slavery was a benevolent enterprise, or that owners cared about slave's welfare.

Yes, the obviously would not horribly mistreat everyone. Like POW camps, some slaves were probably treated well, some not.

As we know from Lee's own slave ledgers and letters, he used terror -- actual violence, and the promise of it.  Lee -- nor any slave owner who wanted to stay a slave owner - bluffed.

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.

Yet, over and over, Southern leaders at the time, especially Lee and Davis, claimed slavery was a kindness to slavery.   Lee even claimed the slaves were the fortunate ones, the ones burdened by slavery, was the whites.

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.

Nor could they bluff -- if you let a slave, even a girl, knock down a white man, or refuse to work, what are you going to do? Cut their pay?

The fact some people today think slavery was a kindness, do not know the evidence of torture, rape, sadism, and killing of reluctant slaves. Yet Southern leaders even then tried to claim slaves had "natural affection" for the master and "was most contented laborers on earth".

YOu don't need to torture slave girls, if they are content and have affection for the master.  But that's how goofy the defense of slavery was- - Jefferson Davis is the guy who came up with the above Orwellian BS about slaves being content

Another BTW -- Lee's father had a slave girl hung, because she knocked down a white man.  Touching a white person in anger could get you hung.   This girl that Lee's father hung -- no one even bothered to record why she would knock down a white man. Was he trying to rape her? Sell her child?  Whip her mother?

It did not matter. She knocked down a white man, and Lee's father  had her hung.

Bet no one told you any of this in "history" class.


Newspapers -- three of them - before the Civil War, reported on Lee's torture of slave girls.  No one told you that, ever, did they?

There is much more -- whipping slave girls did not make the papers.  This young girl tried to escape Lee's plantation -- one of dozens of slave girls that tried.  Lee used, and communicated with, bounty hunters to capture escaped slaves. He paid the highest prices, apparently, for the capture of slave girls. 

But this made the papers -- are you sitting down? -- because Lee's overseer refused to whip her, she was too young for him to whip.

Lee paid someone else to whip her. It's in his own slave ledgers.    If that were not enough, reporters after the Civil War found others who confirmed that story about Lee paying a bounty hunter to whip the girl, that the overseer refused to whip.

You heard right -- Pryor found confirmation for those dates, to those men, and circumstances mentioned in the newspapers.   She found that confirmation -- in Lee's own handwritten records.


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". 

He yelled the whole time.   The bounty hunter who he got to whip the girl was apparently not doing it hard enough, to suit Lee. 

No, Pryor could not confirm what he yelled. But she could and did confirm payments to the men named, and payments to jails to house the escaped slaves, and the dates lined up.  Furthermore, reporters after the war -- about these particular tortures - confirmed the details.   

So the slaves and reporters all lied?   Really?  Strange they would use the names and dates and other facts, that back up the story.  Did they get to look at Lee's slave ledgers, then memorize those details, then hope someone came to them someday, to ask?


Though Pryor did report such things  as the torture of slave girls too young for the regular overseer to whip her -- Pryor is clearly on Lee's side.  In effect, she blames the slave girls. Lee had "every right" to "protect his property"  she claimed.   Orwell much?  Whipping girls for trying to escape is "protecting your property?


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".

Yeah, that's it -- just poor communication skills.  Hilarious, if the subject was not the torture of girls too young to be whipped by a professional whipper -- the regular overseer. 

Actually, Lee's communication skills were perfect. He told that girl -- according to witnesses -- he was going to give her a lesson she would never forget.  Lee biographers did all they could to forget and not mention.

Lee did as he promised -- he tortured that girl, and others.   Torture is the right word. 

Pryor found much more.   This was not an unusual event for Lee.  

And by the way, as you will see, Lee defended the torture of slaves. Pain, Lee wrote his wife "is necessary for their instuction".

As you will see, Lee "scholarship" is so screwy, so Orwellian, the letter Lee wrote justifying torture of slave girls, his defenders claim proves he was against slavery.  They just don't show the full letter, and of course, never tell you about his tortures.  Funny how idolitry works. 

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".  And much more.  God "knew and intended"  that slaves "endure painful discipline (torture)."

That is in the letter -- yes in the letter -- so many folks use to "prove" Lee was against slavery., Really. That's how dishonest and Orwellian "scholars" have been about that one letter.   Pryor had much more than one letter, she had thousands, she said, including to and from bounty hunters. 


Elizabeth Pryor -- who recently died in a traffic accident -- wrote a flattering book about Lee.  Sorta.

On the surface, Pryor's book was as flattering as she could make it.   But the details (devil's in the details)  were horrible. And she calls them horrors, but in a clever way.   She writes about the horrors -- but no where on those pages does she name Lee.  You can easily get the false impression she is talking about other nameless slave owners. No, she is writing about Lee, about things she found in  his papers.    She is not eager to make it clear, if anything, she does all she can to report the horrors, but not in a graphic way that shocks the bejesus out of Lee fans.  

She was a "Lee devotee" herself.   And she worked with the approval of the Lee family. 



Oh, your  history teachers forgot to tell you?  Hell, that's nothing, Lee did that before the Civil War, too, using bounty hunters.

Yes, he did. Lee's bounty hunters sold him humans they had kidnapped in the the North.  He was an old hand at grabbing free people and making them slaves.  By the way, his motive was profit -- not to save souls.

Lee did NOT free his wife's slaves  -- in fact, Pryor shows Lee owned his own, and acquired more.  Furthermore, Lee resisted direct court orders to free the slaves per his father in law's will. That's right, Lee resisted (disobeyed) direct Virginia orders to free the slaves in question, until they were worthless to him anyway

Though Pryor never said so -- Lee was apparently "all about the money, honey."

According to Harper's Weekly at the time -- and no one doubts this whatsoever, it was and is accepted as truth  -- Lee ordered his soldiers, during his Northern invasion, to capture free blacks, and have them beaten,  driven south, and sold as slaves.

 But what Pryor reveals -- cleverly  is Lee had already done such thing before the Civil War.    She had in her hands written evidence of that -- she tells us, too. But so carefully, as you will see.   Every horror she relates, she does in a way not to shock.   She was, after wall, working for and with, literally, the Lee family and Virginia Historical Society.    The amazing thing is not that she was clever how she related these things, but that she got them in, at all. 


Lee did during the Civil War, what he had already done before it.

Pryor found in his papers information that  Lee paid for women his hunters found in the North -- not escaped slaves.  He bought free people.    Pryor says, cleverly, Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork"  and "technically, Lee may have broken the law".  

 Failed to fill out the time consuming paper work.  Un real.  What time consuming paperwork was there, for kidnapped women?    
SHe does not tell us what she saw, specifically -- she could tell us the price,  name, age, and which bounty hunter, but she would not.

  Pryor just mentions "and others" -- he paid for escaped slaves "and others".   Other what?  Other ducks?  No,  here Pryor is most clever. Others -- has to be, other humans. Other than what?  Other than his escaped slaves.   If they were his escaped slaves,  she could have said so easily.  Artfully, like so much else, she tells us in the most careful way.  He failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork (WTF?) about "others". 

Do you really think slave owners, who made their money and got their status in life,  on slave flesh, gave a shit if the black woman sold to them was a run away slave, a free woman, or someone else?  

Do you think Lee said to his bounty hunter, "Oh my God, that girl is not an escaped slave, but a free woman!  God did not deliver her!  I only accept blacks God delivered unto me!  We are so sorry, we will have you taken home to your mother and father right this minute."

Lee turned those free people into slaves.

Yes, he did.   

When you hear this bullshit from your history teacher -- they often give the impression Southern slave owners were so abused, the North would not return the slaves.  Well, so the fuck what?  

Seriously -- so the fuck what if Southern leaders did not want to live near free states.  God, how stupid do these "historians" have to be -- really, how the fuck stupid-- to pass that off as reason for killing and terror Southern leaders used (yes, they did) to spread slavery.

It really seems "historians"   like Foner, McPherson, Catton, still are so punk ass cowards, they still pass off Southern leaders bullshit Orwellian excuses as reasonable.   How about stopping that shit, and deal with what the facts were.  Like who killed who, and why.

Like who Lee bought, who he sold, who he tortured and why.

McPherson, Catton and Foner are typical, sadly of the bullshit "historians" put out.   Get the facts right, you stupid bastards.  Start with that. 

But your history teacher did NOT mention -- I bet -- ever, that guys like Lee paid bounty hunters just to catch or trick anyone.    And Lee was in the area -- very close to free land -- that this kind of thing could happen, and apparently did, as often as those eager for money could make it happen.

Sure, it would be great if Pryor had been candid.  Show us the slave ledgers already. ______________________________________


Either Lee bought women from bounty hunters -- kidnapped or otherwise -- or he did not. There is no middle ground on such facts.

Either Lee's slaves said he was the meanest man they ever saw -- or not.

Freeman claimed Lee's slaves loved him "most of all" -- and that he didn't own slaves, he had "servants".  

Either Lee screamed at slave girls during their torture -- as newspapers said at the time, confirmed in Lee's own slave ledger -- or he did not.

You don't sorta scream at girls as you sorta have them tortured.  




" All Lee ever wanted to be, was a planter."   

Planter = plantation owner.

For decades now, "historians" have used the Orwellian double speak "planter"   when the truth is, that means plantation owner -- slave owner. 

Plantations did not make money on food. They made money on flesh -- and in Lee's area,  the did not grow cotton. They grew slaves.  The sold them, they rented them out.

So the cash crop was human flesh, not veggies, not plants.

Stop that bullshit of Orwellian double speak.  Those tortured and enslaved deserve that. 


Lee's biggest problem -- slaves kept trying to escape.  Pryor relates that carefully, but she gets it out.  How many tried to escape?  She never tells us the most at one time. She never tells us much of anything candidly.

But Lee was in regular communication with bounty hunters. He paid them.  They got escaped slaves for him -- and "OTHERS"

It did not matter to bounty hunters  if the person they cought in the North was an escaped slave or a banana. They wanted the money.

Do you seriously believe bounty hunters gave a shit if the black person they grabbed was a run away slave, or just WITH or near the run away?   Sometimes they captured folks they knew were not ever slaves in their lives, but they would turn them into slaves, by selling them to slave owners.   

No, they didn't care.  They got paid for bringing black flesh to slave owners.  Yes, they did.

No dumbass, that's  not the mind set of men who sell women and childre.  And yes, Lee sold people, he used slave auctions to do it, according to Pryor. 

She had his records -- we wish she had shown his records, but at least she carefully, euphamistically inserted that he did use slave auctions.  She could have been much more clear, but at least she gave us that much.

This was a business -- the movie "12 Years a Slave" showed the business.  But what you did not know, is Lee bought people from these kinds of bounty hunters.  


Pryor nor anyone seems to have balls to teell you  -- 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.

I'd love to know what Lee did with the money he got from selling those blacks his army captured in the war, and sold.

Pryor  could have named her book "Lee's Bounty Hunters,"  or "Lee's Light Skinned Slave Girls Escape".    
But Pryor chose "Reading the Man, A Portrait of Robert E Lee Through His Personal Papers."
     At  least she told us as much as she did, clever or not.

The family worked with the Virginia Historical Society  to pick Elizabeth Pryor, a scholar, a diplomat, and Lee devotee.

The  Lee family  could have chosen anyone.  
 They  COULD have just given copies of his slave ledgers and dirty letters to everyone.  They could have shown the bounty hunter letters,  about the "others"  they brought to Lee, with his escaped slaves.  

But it took them 150 years for them to let ONE person study them.

Now, maybe you know why.


Pryor had to be shocked at what she saw, sorta like a child discovered the dirty diaries and letters of her beloved great grandfather who she had only heard the most lofty praises of.

Her revulsion does creep into her writing, a few times.  Certainly about rape and white looking slave girls, she was shocked, and called those "horrors".  She was oblivious to the horrors of rape, torture, slavery to blacks, seriously, she was.  But when she wrote about the white looking slaves, that seemed a different tone. She was pissed.

Did Pryor think the tortures hurt dark skinned slaves less? Were the rapes -- remember, they were common at Arlington-- less vile?  Did it hurt a dark skinned woman less to have her child sold?     Pryor seems oblivious to that, or at least, kept any awareness of that, out of her writing.


Though Pryor does not say so, if what she wrote, euphamism or no, means Douglas Southall Freeman was a lunatic bullshitter.  Factually, Freeman just made shit up, like that Lee did not own slaves.

Hell yes he did.  And he bought more.  And his cash crop was not veggies or cotton (He did not have slaves raise cotton). His cash crop was human beings. A basic fact that shows how deceptive "historians" have been about Lee 

Historians knew about Lee's papers, for 100 years, two trunks of papers, saved by the Union Army and turned over, with all his personal effects, to the Lee family.

The Lee family would not let anyone see them. Everyone assumed they were just prove how wonderful Lee was. How kind. How much against slavery, how religious .


After all, Pulitzer prize winning historians told us Lee was the best soldier in US history -and "by far" a better Christian than soldier. His life was devoted to "bringing souls to Christ". 

Lee, we were told by historians that are honored to this day, not only was against slavery, when Lee tried to free the slaves, they refused, they loved him that much.

Indeed, Lee was the kind of guy who, during battle, got off his horse, with all his officers, and and listened to long prayers, while bombs exploded around him.   He prayed with a black woman, when no one else would.

Story, after story, book after book. 

Then this. 


Actually Lee's slaves said he was "the worst man we ever saw".

On every page, Pryor played this awful game, of peek a boo.  Yet give her credit - no one else dared to "go there" about Lee, at all.

There are a thousand ways to tell you about Lee's tortures, the rapes at Arlington, the bounty hunters, and Lee's sexually explicit letters.

Pryor takes the road crafted with  care.  

Still, in an era when "scholars" think it's big news to learn the name of Lee's pet chicken (Pearl), Pryor brings thunder -- but little lightening -- to the slave barns, whipping post, and bounty hunters, that took so much of Lee's time before the Civil War, and after his marriage.


In fact, no less that Stephen A Douglas refered to the skin tone of free blacks in Illlinois, during the Lincoln Douglas debates -- Douglas used the light skin of freed slaves proved the danger of freedom for blacks., 

What did Lee write, fully, about the white looking slave girls?

We don't know.  Pryor could have told us all that, so could the Lee family. It will likely be another 150 years before anyone sees those slave ledgers and dirty letters, bounty hunter prices, again.   Maybe by then, the Lee family will allow them to be published, if first they do not destroy them.

As to race mixing, Lincoln responded that actually, race mixing was much more common in slavery.  This was common knowledge at the time, that mixed race children were extremely rare in the North to freed blacks, but in some case, very common on slave plantations -- and Lee was a prime example.


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).

Before Nolan even dared suggest that what we "knew" about Lee was not scholarship at all,  he spent 70 pages or so, praising Lee, probably to prove he was not dangerous to Lee Myth.


Seems every high school teacher can quote one of Lee's letters that slavey "is a moral and political evil"

Oh really?  Read the rest of the letter!

Read the rest of that letter, because he defends  slavery, claims it's from God, and God intended slaves to  feel pain. Pain is "necessary for their instruction".  

SLaves "must endure"  painful discipline, because pain is "necessary for their instruction"?  WTF?

Plus, his actions matter.   His violent, even sadistic actions.  See Lee's tortures of slaves -- torture is the right word. 
Holy shit - they left out a few things.  

Lee wrote that it is evil for men to end slavery -- God will end it!   Abolitionist are trying "to destroy the American church".

Lee's words - when taken in entirety -- were stunningly not only pro slavery, but he defended torture of slaves, though in euphemism.

Nolans very mild, and even apologetic suggestion, that we start over about Lee, was before Ms Pryor came across Lee's amazing letters and slave ledgers. (Yes, slave ledgers).


Yes --  Lee, and all slave owners, came up with excuses, reasons, justifications.  They had to.

You don't have girls tied up and whipped, without some justification in your head.   The human mind does not work that way.

Lee chose the justification most did -- slavery was "of God".   God would decide, not man, when to end it.

What excuse would you come up with ?   You would need a damn extreme excuse -- and GOD was that excuse.  Universal excuse for slavers-- I don't know a single slave owner on record who said "I just like slave women and getting rich this way, I don't believe that God crap".

In fact, Lee wrote that -- God will decide when to end it. It was evil for man to try.    Abolitionist were "against God"  and trying to destroy the "American Church."

Get your head around that -- abolitionist were trying to bring down the "American CHURCH. "  His words! 


LIKE ALL ENDEAVORS OF MEN -- Power, Control, and sex had a lot to do with slavery. 

 Slave owners had absolute power over slaves -- including slave's sex laves.  As Pryor relates-- carefully as always -- rape was "COMMON" at Arlington.  Let me repeat that "COMMON".

WHy would Pryor write that?  Think a bird told her?  

Men will give all kinds of excuses, including  GOD and religion excuses, for anything.  Do you think slave owners and Southern leaders just happened to be the few men ever born, who didn't use absolute power to dominate women?   Really?

Slavery is the prime example of that ---The more vile the action, the more lofty the excuses. They had no choice BUT to claim God wanted them to enslave, and people were stupid enough to believe it, and slave owners vile enough to put that crap out there. 


Lee's famous justification for slavery -- in his letter to his wife -- was that God ordained slavery, and it is not up to man to question God. (A very standard, almost mantra like justification by all slave owners).

God put the slaves in "our hands"  for the benefit of the slave - Lee wrote to his wife. It was the slave owner that was burdened -- not the slave. That too was standard Orwellian double speak of the day.

But the fact Lee sent bounty hunters out -- to capture not only escaped slaves, but "others" as Pryor so artfully put it. shows he didn't give a rat's ass about slaves being delivered by God. He had other means for delivery -- force march or wagon.

Yet, seriously, you can STILL read books and articles about Lee, claiming all he wanted in life, was "to win souls for Christ".

It just never ends.


Pryor does get the horrors in -- she even uses the word "horror,"   but places that word so far away from Lee's name, you would miss that she was talking about what he -- Robert E Lee -- did.

Diplomacy is the art of telling someone they are a lying bastard, to their face, and saying it in a way they think you complimented them.

Pryor has that level of "diplomacy" in how she "confesses" the Lee's tortures, bounties, purchases of flesh.

By the way, Pryor, like most those covering up for slave owners as best they can, tries to suggest Lee was a "Planter".   


Lee did not plant.  The cash crop at Arlington was flesh - -flesh and labor.  He did not sell tomatoes at a roadside stand.   He did not raise cotton - he did not raise anything, of course, his slaves did.

But Lee's cash crop was PEOPLE.  Yes, he bought people, and yes, he sold peole.  Pryor admits he used a slave auction -- and gives the impression it was not often.  Shee never said "Lee only used a slave auction twice".  She just gives that impression. 

That's how diplomats, defense attorneys, liars, and hustlers work.  They don't tell the whole truth.

But Pryor actually stands out for saying as much as she did!

All these years -- "historians" have known Lee turned free people into slaves. 

Lee had women, children -- anyone black looking -- captured in the North, and taken South, to be sold.

There were sold.

He could have used slave auctions dozens of times, we don't know. But Pryor does --or did,before her untimely death in a car accident in 2015.

Pryor  should have showed us the slave ledgers, and letters to and from bounty hunters.  She should have been candid.  


Bet you didn't know that.

Some folks who read her book absurdly claim "Pryor pulled no punches".   Actually, she did little but pull punches.   The trick about "others" is one example.

She could have listed the names, ages, sex, and likely height and skin tone, of the people Lee's hunters presented him with.  

Pryor had to see all that -- Lee would not have written "I got others today".     For her to say Lee paid for others -- sly, but she said it --she had to find things that made it very clear who he bought, who he paid, and where they were from.

Her goal, however, was not to knock the halo from his head, but to please the people she worked for, and with -- the Lee family, and Virginia Historical Society.

Her book is so artfully written, that most Lee admirers can read it, and not cringe. Not even a little.


Holy Shit,.  

Actually Lee had excellent cross cultural communication skills -- namely, the whips, whipping post, his own overseer, and the example he set, by whipping those folks who displeased him.

Euphamism much, Ms Pryor?  Pryor doesn't stop at euphamisms, she slides right passed that to Orwellian double speak. 


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.

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



  Lee's father had a slave girl hung for knocking down a white man.   No one even bothered to record why she knocked him down, Lee had her  hung.  She was 15 years old.  Striking a white man was a death penalty, if the owner chose it.  Lee's father, chose it.




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

Lee had to write something -- a  payment to someone to install it, maybe a letter from his wife asking why?

When you see something like that in Pryor's book, where the hell did she get it?  She got it FROM LEE'S PAPERS.   A letter, a ledger, a complaint.  Apparently Lee wrote a LOT of letters, and got a lot.

A silent witness.     Really?   We know there was much screaming and crying and yelling done by that "silent"  whipping post. Lee did someof the yelling, according to witnesses.

Do you think Pryor wrote that word "silent" for no reason?   Pryor is artful.   Would the Lee family keep her around 10 seconds if she wrote "Lee had girls whipped, this whipping post was the scene of a lot of tortures, and Lee himself liked to watch".



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

She actually wrote that.





Repeating myths
don't make them true 


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.

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.