Monday, September 10, 2012


under construction 
under construction 
under construction 

under construction 

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


 But he did not burn them.



    SO ARE FACTS    


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

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

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


Have you ever seen a picture,

of one of Lee's white looking slave girls?


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

Supposed "experts" told us that. 





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


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

Are they teaching myth, or fact?

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

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

They can, however, tell you the name of Lee's pet chicken.




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Lee was one of the buyers.


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

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

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

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

Some humans Lee bought, were already slaves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you will see, Lee's papers show he did in fact own slaves, bought more, and bought them from bounty hunters -- and kidnappers.

Bounty hunters looked for escaped SLAVES.  But Lee also bought, and his slave ledgers show this -- OTHERS.   He bought OTHERS that were never slaves, until Lee got his hands on them.

Pryor -- every page, every sentence carefully written -- never gives the ugliness of any of this. But she does, oh so carefully, get in the basic facts.  

She  uses Orwellian double speak, and euphemisms, sometimes she crosses over into lies -- but no one ever came close to Pryor for getting this information in front of the public.

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



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

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


Lee ordered that.  That is not in dispute. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

Some of the linguistic tricks she used -- 



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

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

Torture is the right word. 

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

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

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

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



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

Time for the truth.

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

But she does get the information in -- 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White slaves?  That is what upset Pryor.

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

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

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

Silent reminder?  Gawd.

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

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


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

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

  How the hell was Pryor going to handle that?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

His wife bought it. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Elizabeth Pryor.  Scholar. Lee devotee.

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

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

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





Pryor calls Lee a "planter".  Not a slave trader, not a slave seller. A planter.   Actually, Lee made his living on SLAVES.  Renting them out, buying them, selling them.   He did not have a vegetable roadside stand, or sell organic produce.

He sold SLAVES and their labor.  

But we have historians who -- without any guilt whatsoever -- call Lee a planter. They do the same word games for Davis, and every Confederate leader who had slave farms -- called them "planters".


Lee didn't plant anything. He sold slaves. He bought them. He rented them out.



Not surprisingly, Pryor, nor the Lee family, will show the slave ledgers. In fact, Pryor refuses to call them  "slave ledgers".

  She calls them, slyly, "monthly account books" and that, only once.

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

Pryor got copious information from those slave ledger-- err, account books.  

Pryor could, and did, get prices he paid, who he paid,  and who he paid for which slave, which kidnapped woman, which escaped slave.  She had it all.

She can call them pancakes, but what a stir she would have created to say anything candidly -- even the word  "slave ledgers" would have stopped traffic in Virginia, and probably got her thrown out of the state.

Instead, Pryor was so artful, so careful, that she was welcomed in various Virginia circles, including by the Lee family and Journal of Southern history.  

So - -" monthly account books" it was.  That's kind of a pattern in her entire book, on every page.  But no one else even gave us that much. 


 None of us are surprised that myths are often confused with history.  But Lee?   Didn't we know all about him?

Surely LEE myth had to be  the same as the real man?

NOT SO MUCH. We are fed this bullshit that slavery was wrong, but slave owners loved their slaves and treated them well. Nonsense, Lee was cruel -- if anything more cruel that others, as the facts prove.




Thousand ways to tell you.

There are 1000 ways to leave your lover, and even more ways to tell you about slavery, rape, torture.  Not surprisingly, people used Orwellian double speak, long before George Orwell wrote about it.

One bit of Orwellian nonsense is the term "Planter". Lee and Davis are often called "planters"  and Pryor does this for Lee.    

He was a slaver.  His cash crop was not plants, but human flesh.   Human labor. He did not sell potatoes or cotton. He sold and rented out human beings.

Essentially, Lee ran a POW camp.   

People were tortured if they tried to escape.   That's what happens at POW camps.  But Lee sold -- yes he did -- children, and sold -- yes he did -- women.

Even POW camps don't do that.

Pryor could have shown us much more, she is coy on every page.  

If Pryor had relayed her information in candid way, she would have blown the lid off not just the Lee myth, but of the whole BS we call history of slavery and slave owners as honorable men.

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

As you will see, he was not reluctant slave owner.

Pryor would  not give us the name -- or even say bluntly -- that Lee bought kidnapped women. She just says Lee bought "others". when he paid for captured slaves. Who would others be?  She could have told us, she had to have seen information for her to tell us that much.


DYK Lee turned free blacks into slaves
 during the Civil War?  He did that before the war, too.

 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.

No one disputes this, at all. This is an established fact -- and was at the time. Historians and Lee biographers have known this -- but did  not want to sully his reputation by telling the public in any clear way.

So too, it is an established fact three newspapers BEFORE the Civil War reported Lee had a slave girl whipped, along with other slaves.  They had tried to escape.  That was not newsworthy -- slaves were regularly tortured who tried to escape.

Historians did not want to relate that one in any candid way -- claiming that it was "so unlike" Lee it must not be true.  Pryor found out, oh yes, it was true, because Lee himself wrote entries into his own papers (slave ledgers) confirming it for those dates.

This made the papers, however, because the regular overseer -- the man who whipped the slaves - refused to whip this girl, BECAUSE she was too young.  Lee had her whpped anyway.

Remember, these were both stories already known. Not in dispute.   Pryor, of course, knew both facts. Indeed, Pryor validated Lee's torture of the slave girl, the girl so young, the regular overseer refused.  She found evidence in Lee's own handwritten records that verified these tortures, payments to men named, and other details  from the newspaper accounts at the time

Also, historians have known about Lee's role in the capture of these blacks - it's not in dispute.   It's simply not talked about in your history books.


 They covered up more than Lee's comb over.


IF we watched Lee at slave auctions -- yes, he went to slave auctions --for five minutes, we would know more about him than from all the "historians" who try to prop up his supposed noble character, religious devotion, and bravery.  He did not have noble character -- noble men do not buy women from bounty hunters and turn them into slaves, as Lee did.

The excuse almost everyone gives, when they find out Lee tortured (yes tortured) slave girls, is "Well everyone did that"  .

No they did not. Everyone did not torture slave girls.  When you learn that Lee's usual overseer did whip other slaves, but refused to whip one girl, because she was too young, you will know what kind of man Lee was.

Lee had her whipped anyway.  That's right, he had her whipped even though his overseer refused because she was too young.

Think everyone did that?

Amazingly, Pryor carefully got this information to us, though her artful way of softening the horrors, but she got them in.

She deserves everlasting credit for this one.



Three different newspapers at the time -- before the Civil War- - reported on usual tortures at Lee's plantation.  Torture of slaves was common (it was torture, so we will call it that).

But this torture made the papers because the girl Lee had tortured, and screamed at all through her torture, was so young.

The regular overseer refused to whip her. Lee had a nearby bounty hunter whip her, and screamed at her all through her torture.  That's why it made the newspapers.

Historians have long known of the newspaper stories -- but as biographer Douglas Freeman explained, it was so unlike Lee (supposedly) that he never took those newspapers seriously.

Actually, it was very much like Lee.   Lee defended the torture of slaves, claiming God "knew and intended" slaves feel pain, which is "necessary for their instruction".

His father had a slave girl about that young hung to death, Lee grew up that way.  Sorry if you think slavery was some nice enterprise, it was  not.


Yes, Pryor  should have showed us the slave ledgers and letters.  She never does.

But given how extreme Pryor was to protect Lee, it's hard to imagine she would try to minimize everything he did, but then lie about what she found.   
Pryor should have been more candid -- every page is drenched in euphamism and double speak, but give her credit, she gets the information in.

I'm not sure what is more amazing -- that Lee bought women from bounty hunters illegally, or how Pryor tells us. 


Pryor's narrative -- the impression she tries to give -- is flattering as can be. 

 She starts by comparing Lee favorably to the supposed greatest men in history.   The "horrors" are sprinkled in a few words  here, a few there, like MSG in a Chinese buffet.   You can read her book, and hardly notice the horrors. 

From 1880 on, the most goofy stories appeared about Lee, that never were mentioned by any one during his life....

 Nothing was too goofy to claim.  Caring only to bring souls to Christ,  saving sparrows in the field.  One image showed a mother bringing a child to Lee, as if he were Christ.

 Myth making at its finest. Douglas Southall Freeman eventually won the goofy contest, claiming Lee not only had no faults to probe, but now sits at "the right hand of Christ, his Lord".

George Mason, above, described men like Lee as, 
essentially,  sociopaths dressed up for church.  More, he predicted 
such men would cause a "national calamity" over the spread of slavery.

He was right.

"Historians": such as the goofy Douglas Southall Freeman, 
described Lee as "Greatest Christian"  who now sits at the right hand of Christ, his Lord. Very good at footnotes. Not good at truth.

He was wrong.  In fact, he lied his ass off, as primary sources show -- and he knew he lied his ass off. 



Freeman's basic assertions were not true. 

For example, a bed rock of Freeman's BS is that his slaves -- uh, servants, loved him "

most of all".    


Freeman would quote a book (actually a pamphlet)  by a former slave (actually this guy never met Lee) that supposedly proved Lee was such a marvelous anti-slavery person. 

That "book" was actually a pamphlet handed out in 1920's and 30's by an old black men dressed up in a confederate uniform, who went around "preaching"  and gave out the pamphlet before his "preaching". 

Freeman would know who Lee's personal slaves were -- of course. None of them were this guy, Mack Lee, as he called himself.

  Mack Lee, or whatever his real name was, spoke to white audiences and told them they were right --blacks should appreciate what whites have done for them.   Then he collected an "offering"  for his "church" he was going to build.

But Freeman made sure his readers know nothing of that.

Freeman made sure that readers DID NOT know Mack Lee was  not listed in any of Lee's papers.  If "Mack" was his "servant" all through the war, why did Lee's letters and papers never refer to him, but to other names?

And Freeman was not about to tell you that the "book" was filled with goofy stories, like Mack and Lee were in a house hit by a cannon ball, and Lee laughed and said "I aint never seen no nigger get hit like that".

That's the kind of shit in Mack Lee's pamphlet -- Freeman passed it off as factually one of Lee's slaves. Bullshit. And Freeman knew it.

That's called lying.

Nothing too goofy: 

Right now -- today - not as a joke, folks insist Lee got off his horse, with all his officers, and prayed during battle, as bombs blew up around him.    Problem is, Lee was never personally IN a battle, he stayed "well in the rear" according to Longstreet.  

  Things that turned out to be bullshit ...

Lee didn't own slaves -- bullshit

Lee freed all his wife's slaves -- bullshit 

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

Lee got off of his horse and -- during battle, as bombs blew up around him, with all his officers, listened to a long prayer -- total bullshit 

Lee only cared about saving souls for Christ. Gimmie a break.

Lee was a planter.    Bullshit --Planter? He was a slave trader. 

Lee's men adored him -- no,  his desertion rate was 90%. 67% by '64.

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

Lee had no faults to probe.   Bullshit.

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

This is sick. Remember, Lee had slave girls TORTURED for trying to escape. And this bastard tells us they loved him so much, they refused to leave?

What kind of sick fuck is he?  And shame on those "history teachers" who let this kind of crap pass as "scholarship".

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


Robert E Lee wrote, and received, a lot of letters.  And he saved them.

He wrote, apparently, highly detailed records.

Any slave owner's slave ledgers and letters to bounty hunters would contain some ghastly sentences. Slavery was a cruel enterprise, and bounty hunters were the worst of the worst.   

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

 The truth came flooding in. Pryor had to be stunned, she had to have had sleepless nights, figuring out, how to get this all into the book, without trashing Lee, and all they "history" that went before?


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



If you had a video camera following Robert E. Lee (or any slave owner) around at a slave auction, and see what they laugh about, see the slave girls they sell or buy, see Lee load the women and children onto his wagon, see how he reacted to their cries,  you  would understand Lee, or any slave owner,  better than any bullshit by any historian. 

And that is if the "historian" tells you the truth.


In 1861, Union soldiers boxed up Robert E Lee's personal effects, including his slave ledgers and letters to and from bounty hunters.

After the war, the soldiers gave the Lee family all those personal items, many in two trunks of papers.  Historians have long known those two trunks existed --and assumed  they would just show what a lovely anti-slavery, noble and kind man Lee was.

Finally, one person got to see them. 

They should show them -- too bad the Union soldiers didn't keep and publish his slave ledgers and letters.  But at the time, those letters and slave ledgers were  nothing unusual.  Interesting stuff, but not at all news to people alive then.


  Pryor is artful. 

"Lee's slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management." 

No single sentence, no paragraph, no page, will jump out and grab  you,  about torture, about rape, about bounty hunters about  slave auctions.  Delicate -- so delicate -- is Pryor that she can write sentences like this "Lee's slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management."   As if Lee sat down at meetings with representatives of the Slave Union, local 405, and traded history of labor theory.  Think of that. Think about that real hard. Lee  had slave women sold - yes  he did. He separated mothers from their children via slave auction and sending some slaves to deep south, yes, he did.   And she writes  this shit?  

"Lee's slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management."   That's not artful. Thats bat shit crazy, or it wins the Orwelliand double speak of the century.  
Hilariously, one reviewer of Pryor's books said "Well, she didn't pull any punches, that's for sure". 

Didn't pull punches?



This sounds like sophistry -- like it can not be true.

No one alive in 1860 in the South would be surprised that Lee had slave girls tortured for trying to escape.

Pryor tried to explain it away -- "Lee had every right to protect his property"  she wrote, and claimed (falsely) that it was a law in Virginia that escaped slaves be whipped.

No one needed to write a law that slaves be whipped -- and other tortures used - for trying to escape.  In fact, Virginia law tried to limit the number of  slashes of the whip -- no minimum.  But a maximum.

Pryor had in her hands, evidence of vile things.  The worst part of humanity -- slavery. Slavery of young women. Slavery of children.  That's what was going on at Arlington. It doesn't matter if you are so stupid you believe slavery was some moderate Christian thing.   In the slave barns, at the whipping post, at the auctions, late at night and when no one was around, slavery was vile shit.

Lee was no exception.  

  If you are going to sell humans, and torture them for trying to escape,    what line would you not cross?   Is this too "complicated" for historians? 

Pryor  confirmed delicately as possible,  that the three newspaper reports of Lee's torture of a slave girl too young to be whipped by the regular overseer, were true,  were verified by Lee's own handwritten slave ledgers.

Amazing she was that bold. For an author to write sentences that slaves did not fully agree with his theory of labor management,  - that she would ALSO later write about his tortures of the slave girl, too young to whip?

Pryor had to have emotional whip lash.


The pages may look ordinary to you -- but believe me, she had to freak out when writing some of this stuff, especially about white looking slave girls.

Pryor seemed to be pissed off about that.  She called that a "horror".  Whites were "increasingly enslaving other whites".

And they were -- but does torture of a white girl, hurt her any less than torture of black girl? Why is it a horror, only when she finds that some of these girls were light skinned, and a number (she won't say the number) could possibly pass for white.

THAT was  horrible to her. Ghastly.

But whipping "regular" slave girls -- not a big deal.  Right to protect his property.

In his ledgers, Lee himself  and names, dates, prices  he paid, that "undoubtedly" confirm the basic story of the torture (torture is the right word) of the girl too young or small for the regular overseer.

If that were not enough, after the war, reporters talked to ex slaves at Arlington and confirmed it, yet again, about this specific time, when Lee had the girl tortured.

AND TORTURE is the right word. 

There should be a movie about the overseer, who refused.

How do you tell a story of a man so cruel he sold children, screamed at slave girls as they were tortured, bought kidnapped women, but make him seem noble and wonderful?

Read Pryor's book, she did it.


  We know the slave ledgers and letters exist. Elizabeth Pryor wrote a an entire book about them.    She won't show the slave ledgers, or letters.  She would not even call them, candidly, slave ledgers.

 She called them "monthly account books".  

Pryor  had to describe these ledgers someway.  She had to use words -- what words would she use?  She couldn't just say she got this through the grape fine.

Monthly account books.  

Why not show them?    

 At least call them slave ledgers. 

Her goal apparently  was to keep Lee's halo upon his head, as much as possible, and not create an uproar.

Here is how amazing her skill was -- though she revealed really vile things -- her book was given a positive review by Journal of Southern History


She "spanks"  slave owners as a group.  But she is actually writing about Lee. She is vague on that - she never writes "Lee was enslaving whites".   But "Whites were enslaving other whites".

That's why you can read her book and  not notice, she is writing about LEE. Not slave owners as a group.  

By the way -- enslaving whites was next on the list. Few even speak about this, but here was talk, in the South, about enslaving whites too!  Why not?  The bible did not say specifically enslave blacks. Contrary to what you may think, there is nothing biblical about enslaving blacks, or blacks only.

In fact, as Vice President Stephens said, other nations had enslaved whites.   Lincoln spoke about this in one of the debates -- all but overlooked now.  Indeed some spoke of enslaving whites, it was exactly as right, or wrong, as enslaving blacks, that is, until the South created their own CSA Constitution.




Virginia Historical Society should publish Lee's slave ledgers and dozens of letters to his bounty hunters.We know they have them.  Elizabeth Pryor wrote a book about the slave ledgers and bounty hunter letters. Or as she calls them "Lee's personal papers."  

Elizabeth Pryor adores Lee -- so why did she chose to put in a picture (the only picture of a slave in her book) about one of Lee's white looking slaves.   It almost seems as if she wrote two books, at once.  . 
But  Pryor includes a picture of a white looking child Lee owned? And much more.  Wow. Wow.   





Early in the book, when discussing sex with slaves, Pryor uses the word "Dalliance"  which is a playful encounter with someone of the other sex, not necessarily even sexual at all.

Fred and Ginger had a "Dalliance".    

So that's the mood she set.  And she did not do anything without thought.

But she found rapes were common - at ARLINGTON.  And that someone what was the father of these lighter skinned slaves.

Yes, she said, rapes were common. Had she put that on page 1 or page 5, people would notice. But she was careful, as always.  The rapes were common at ARLINGTON, but Pryor's clever use of words and misdirection, you could easily miss that.


So Sorry, We will send you back immediately?
When Lee's bounty hunters brought him escaped slaves "AND OTHERS" -- the others had to be, those that were no his escaped slaves.

This was not that uncommon.   Lee was in Northern Virginia - he could Washington.  It was a simple matter -- for people who had money and no conscience -  to buy kidnapped blacks.  Blacks who were free and legally living in North.  It happened -- regularly.

By trickery and force, bounty hunters grabbed free blacks anywhere they could. Drugged them, beat them, gagged them. Whatever.

The recent movie  "12 Years A Slave" was about  a man captured illegally, sold as a slave. He was not the only one, it was a business, a way to make money. Good money. 
Men like Lee - -- large plantation owner -- would be the perfect buyer.  And apparently he bought. We know he got "others"  with his escaped slave.  Pryor would never bluntly give us more information.

Pryor tells us about Lee's bounty hunters getting escaped slaves, and "others".   Others?  Pryor cleverly wrote Lee "failed to fill out the time consuming paperwork"  and "technically, may have even broken the law."  

Clever, even hilarious if this was not a man turning women into slaves by use of bounty hunters.

Seriously, the more vile Lee's action (in this case, creating slaves out of kidnap victims)  the more effort Pryor put in her double speak.  Techinically MAY have broke the law?  Time consuming paper work?   What the hell is she talking about, time consuming paperwork.



Rape, Pryor finally tells us, was common, at Arlington. Were rapes all violent?

Pryor artfully says "COERCION" used in "those situations".

Coercion? WTF does that mean?  Those "situations"?   Pryor has no shame -- but how would she get that in, without such euphemism. 

She could have written  "Rapes were common, and Lee's letters show women were raped by force".    She could give us the names, if Lee's letter had them. Perhaps his wife wrote to him, for example, complaining about reports of torture or rape.

Most of the slaves at Arlington grew up with Lee's wife -- not Lee. She played with them as children.   She knew them from babies up.   So doubtless, when a slave girl was tortured, raped, or her child sold, they would have complained to MARY Lee.

And she would have contacted Lee.  We can't know for sure -- Pryor won't tell us. But she did read letters to and from Lee about this. Someone wrote this down and Lee responded

Pryor came up with the term those "situations"?  How long did it take her to pick that term?   Coercion??  That means force. Did they beat her? Tie her up?

Pryor had to read something that led her to write "coercion". So, what was that something?  Coercion was used in "those situations"?


Jeff Davis and others insisted slaves were "content and happy"  with "natural affection for the master.

Oh really?  Then why was Lee's biggest problem escaped slaves?  And why did he have to use torture (torture is the right word)  on slaves who tried to escape?

The 1839 book "Slavery As It Is"  is almost unreadable.  The vile tortures,  described by hundreds of slaves or witnesses, is so disgusting, most people can not finish it.

Was Lee that bad?  He was if you tried to escape, as you will see.

Lee's father had a slave girl hung - for knocking down a white man. Slave owners did not play -- what are you going to do, cut their pay? 

As we know from Arlington itself, you were tortured if you tried to escape, and burned to death or hung if you fought back.

As Lincoln pointed out, slavery was founded on violence, kept going by torture, threat of torture, and threat of rape, threat of being sold to even more cruel men. 

By the way -- slave owners did not bluff.   When they told slaves they would be tortured, sold raped,  that is exactly what happened.




By the way, do you know that, according to the newspaper at the time, Lee screamed at the girl all through her torture. Guess what he kept yelling?

According to them -- "Hit her harder, hit her harder"  or in the vernacular of torture then "Lay it on, lay it on". 


Pryor would not allow any blame to come to Lee -- it was not anger or lust or revenge that led Lee to pay bounty hunters to capture girls, and then personally direct their torture. No no no no. You got Lee all wrong!

Pryor says the torture (violent discipline) was a "result of Lee's poor cross cultural communication skills".

Here is an interesting letter from Lee to his wife.  Pryor does show part of it -- not all of it. And she does not show the slave ledgers, or many letters.  

The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?

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



Pryor nor anyone seems to have balls to tell you candidly -- slave owners like Lee cash crop was FLESH. Not veggies.  Lee didn't have a turnip patch, a roadside stand selling veggies.

 There is an Orwellian term for slave owners  -- "historians" like Pryor uses is -- she calls Lee a "planter".  She is not the only one to say "Planter" when she knows good and well, he was a slaver, and made money on slave flesh and slave labor.

Lee was one of those slave owners.