LEE WROTE IT DOWN
LEE WROTE IT DOWN
Elizabeth Brown Pryor.
A close friend of Lee family, the family picked Pryor to be the only person we know of to study two large trunks of Lee's slave ledgers.
PRYOR HAD NO CLUE
Pryor adored adored Lee. She assumed the Lee myth was true---- until she read Lee's slave ledgers.
And until she read Lee's dirty letters.
And until she read Lee's bounty hunter instructions.
CASH CROP
Lee's cash crop, by the way, was not cotton grown and gathered by slaves. There was no cotton crops at Arlington.
Rather, Lee's cash crop was flesh. Human flesh. Pryor gives us some prices- prices he paid, and prices he received-- for the sale of FLESH
FLESH -- human flesh -- humans -- were Lee's cash crop.
Lee even sold children to terrorize or further the mother's suffering. He was a sadist.
_________________________________
WHY LEE TORTURED SLAVES
NOT BECAUSE HE WAS CRUEL!
_________________________________
Pryor was artful -- delicate -- clever-- to minimize Lee's cruelty.
For example, Lee was not really cruel --in regard to torture of slaves, according to Pryor. Lee simply had "poor cross cultural communication skills."
Poor cross cultural communication skills.
Pryor was clueless that the movie "Cool Hand Luke" with Paul Newman was famous for the torture scene, where the man torturing Newman yelled "What we have here --- a a failure to communicate."
That was it -- failure to communicate
As if Lee would just learn Ebonics, all would be fine.
But consider --Pryor had to say something to defend Lee. She was not about to just say Lee had these slave girls tortured-- and leave it alone.
Every time Pryor revealed anything -- torture, rapes, dogs trained to terrorize and maul children, bounty hunters, kidnap women in the North that were not escaped slaves, etc etc
Pryor she came up with words to minimize and blame others. A spoon full of sugar wo make the medicine go down.
Still-- no one in US history had done anything like this - to expose Lee's torture, the rapes, the screaming at slave girls as he had them tortured.... sale of children as punishment -- on and on
ADDED SUFFERING
On top of Lee's physical torture (torture is the right word as you will see) to punish slave women even more, Lee added other injury and fears to slave women -- including the torture that Lee sold their children, or could for any reason.
Lee actually sold children away from the mother. Not for money, but to terrorize and to punish.
Lee was not unique in selling children --nor unique in torture of slaves. Slavery was all about violence -- and terror.
Pryor was more candid about Lee's father, White Horse Harry Lee. Pryor admits, candidly, Lee's father, one of the "Founding Fathers" actually killed -- hung -- slaves for trying to escape.
Unless you terrorized your slaves-- you did not have slaves very long. Pryor tried to tell her readers escaped slaves, by law, had to be tortured (tortured is the right word). But there is no known law like that. Nor did Pryor bother to show it.
Again, Pryor had to ameliorate -- meaning blame someone else that Lee -- forLee's sadism. See details of Lee's torture--
Why would a slave owner kill his own "product" -- a slave owner explained it. This slave owner chased an escape slave himself -- using dogs (bounty hunters always used dogs-- dogs that mauled, even killed slaves. A reason child slaves did not usually try to escape-- they ran slower and the dogs would kill a small child.
Not Lee- - Lee sold children for his own reasons - cash, or possibly to punish the mother. He did not try to keep the children he sold to nearby slave plantations
As a result, mothers might walk 50 hours to see their child for a few minutes, if they got to see their children at all.
Lee made one of his slaves BUY -- meaning pay Lee- - for ownership or control of that slave's granddaughter.
Money the slave earned over 60 years of doing odd jobs for others, and keeping the money.
That was a "Good N------" who bought his grandchild. That's the proper way --pay Lee money after he enslaved you, so you could be near your granddaughter.
Who said Lee was not a caring man!
Slavery decimated-- for the greed of the owner--almost all concept of a mother and father with their children
Slaves were not allowed to even know who their father was by name.
That was up to the slave owner- - in this case- Lee.
__________________
THREE BASICS
1) LEE WROTE IT ALL DOWN2) PRYOR ADORED LEE AT FIRST
3) THEN PRYOR FOUND LEE'S SLAVE LEDGERS
__________________
PRYOR:
" MY JOB IS TO EXPOSE THE UGLY"
In 2010, Pryor gave a lecture about her Lee Biography.
Pryor told the audience that her duty, her job and an historian, "was to expose the ugly."
Yet Pryor started-- from her title -- "Lee's personal papers." Never once did she write the candid term "slave ledgers."
Yet slave ledgers is exactly what showed the prices Lee paid, and receive, for human flesh. Pryor could even tell us the average price Lee paid, when and where he a paid, and to who did he pay.
Pryor even tells us the distance and name of the slave auction business Lee used.
Where would she get the precise information from -- including the age of the slaves Lee's sold and bought? From a duck?
Pryor was not about to make plain anything -- if that anything would show or verify Lee's sadism, cruelty to slaves, including cruelty and torture of small slave women.
__________________________
For example, Pryor could tell us -- always in vague terms, that Lee bought humans from bounty hunters who illegally captured women from the NORTH a year before the Civil War.
Pryor writes "technically, Lee broke the law." And blamed "complicated paper work" as if there was paperwork, and it was complicated, to capture black women in the North in the North, and turn them into slaves, for Lee personally.
Pryor, in other words, was a shit head liar who would and did help make her readers dumber -- not smarter -- about Lee and Civil War.
DO NOT SAYLEE SLAVE LEDGERS!
Instead of saying Lee's slave ledgers, Pryor artfully calls them "Monthy account books."
Ye
______________________
Pryor did expose more than anyone else, yes, at least regarding torture of slaves, purchase of kidnapped women, sale of children as punishment to the mother, and dozens of other astonishing acts of cruelty --even sadism --committed by Lee.
Yet each time Pryor revealed cruelties, sadism, etc, Pryor used euphemism or Orwellian double speak -- or even outright deception when needed to blame everyone else -- except Lee.
Pryor even blamed the slaves, suggesting Lee was right, that to end slavery (perhaps in 2000 years) no one should "upset" the slave owner.
Pryor also lied, by claiming the Virginia legislature required captured slaves be tortured (torture is the right word)
That was no true -- Virginia law did not require anyone be tortured, certain not mandate the torture of small slave women. The Virginia law, as Pryor knew (but did not tell her readers) was a LIMIT, a limit on number of lashes.
But Pryor had to fool her readers somehow-- so that is how she fooled readers.... euphemism, misdirection, and lies.
"PRYOR WRITES ABOUT THE HORRORS"
Pryor exposes slavery as a HORROR. Notice how careful she is, in this regard.
Pryor does not even have Lee's name near the word "horror" -- when she writes about this (to her) horror.
The horror of slaves??? According to Pryor the only "horror" of slavery was this:
WHITES ARE INCREASINGLY ENSLAVING OTHER WHITES!
Whites are "increasingly" enslaving other whites. She also writes that "rape" was common" even at Lee's slave farm,
The white slaves - including white slave girls--were bought or born at the slave plantation. Over 50% of Lee's slaves were mulatto -- and Lee owned slave women, at least one, who "could pass for white."
Lee did not free the slave women or men who were lighter skinned, nor did he free slave women who could pass for white.
In fact, a white looking slave woman -- a woman Lee noted "could pass for white" escaped-- Lee had bounty hunters chase her.
Pryor would of course know -- and know well -- if that white looking slave girl was captured or not. Either way if she was captured -- because Pryor admits Lee tortured (ordered them to be whipped).
Pryor knew the name of that girl, what price Lee paid for her (Lee bought slaves, and bought women from bounty hungers captured illegally in the NORTH) .
Pryor would also know the names of whoever Lee paid to capture her.
But Pryor sure as hell was not going to tell her readers anything specific, anything that would show Lee as a sadist, which he was.
KEEP LEE'S HALO
ON HIS HEAD -- TO EXTENT POSSIBLE
ON HIS HEAD -- TO EXTENT POSSIBLE
Pryor's actual mission, her goal, was this:to write in such a way that she could pretend to "expose" the ugly -- but to keep Lee's halo upon his head.
Quick example 1) Pryor admits Lee had slaves tortured-- tha all slave who tried to escape, Lee had tortured. (Torture is the right word).
How does Pryor "minimize" Lee's blame?
SILENT REMINDER TRICK
First, Pryor artfully stated that when Lee took over discipline (punishment/torture) of slaves, Lee installed a whipping post.
Pryor claimed Lee installed the whipping post (meaning, he forced slaves to do the work) as a "SILENT REMINDER"
But later we find out Lee's biggest problem was escaped slaves-- that dozens of slaves escaped at one time. Escaping slaves was Lee's "biggest problem," meaning Lee lost money if slaves escaped.
Lee owned, immediately - all his wife's wealth once they were married.
The "Custis" slaves, Pryor hints, were spoiled. ThLee had every escaped slave, who was caught, tortured.
Rather -- the law was a LIMIT -- a LIMIT on the number of lashes Lee could legally use to torture the slaves
Pryor made sure he readers had no idea that before the slaves were caught -- dogs had already chased them, dogs trained to find an attack any black person who was running away. Slaves were killed at time, and murdered by the bounty hunters. Slave owners were know to admit it was worthwhile that their run away slaves were killed rather than have other slaves learn any actually escaped.
Pryor white washed and or omitted such horror. Pryor white washed, or if the horror was impossible to white wash, she and instead claimed -- she lied- that Lee had to have them tortured by law.
So no -- Pryor was not about to "reveal the ugly."
Pryor she had to be careful about other horrors -- like Lee's written orders to have his own soldiers shot during battle, if they ran.
Pryor -- as she did on every single thing she revealed-- minimized Lee's cruelty. Pryor points out -- re his orders to have his own soldiers shot during battle -- that Lee "rescinded" the order.
Pryor "forgot" to mention that Stalin also ordered his own soldiers shot in battle as they ran.
Pryor's job, overall, was to keep Lee's halo upon his head. To "expose" nothing candidly, in order not to stun every living being in Virginia- - but to be safe in Virginia.
Virginia folks-- and slave state folks generally -- deeply believe Lee did not even have slaves-- and the "servants" he had, well they loved him so much, they refused to leave when he offered them to leave.
also studied Lee's "dirty letters" - sexually explicit letters to and from "other women" for decades
Lee kept meticulous slave ledgers -- with prices, dates, names. Lee even kept track of the skin tone -- the shade, dark to light, of his slaves, and those who he bought,and sold.
The Lee family chose friend and historian Elizabeth Pryor to study, at length Lee's journals, letters, and papers.
These two trunks (see picture below) of Lee's handwritten papers had not been studied by scholars. Until now.
HISTORIAN ELIZABETH PRYOR
For seventy years scholars knew or heard about, those two trunks of Lee's papers.
Even those who, like Pryor, adored Lee
No doubt several thousand "Lee scholars" would have given their right arm to study those papers -- which included Lee's handwritten, very detailed, slave ledgers.
______________________________________________
WHAT WAS PRYOR'S BIG PROBLEM?
Pryor's big problem -- once she held Lee's slave ledgers and dirty letters in her hands -- was this:
How the hell was she going to tell anyone?
✔️Could or should Pryor bluntly reveal the slave auctions, whipping posts, bounty hunters in a candid way?
✔️Would the Lee family allow his slave ledgers, dirty letters, payment to bounty hunters -- etc-- to be made pubic? (No)
✔️Could or would Pryor bluntly reveal Lee's torture of slave girls for trying to escape?
✔️How -- if at all-- she would reveal that Lee bought other humans -- not escaped slavery -- but other human kidnapped in the North by criminals?
Lee's letter to wife - wow
Pryor -- in her public lecture about her book-- made a bit fun of those who use Lee's famous letter to his wife to claim Lee was against slavery.
Lee was very much for slavery -- and the profit, status and fun (see below) that went along with owning women.
When Lincoln said slave owners should be kicked to death-- and when he called slave owners "pleasure seekers" he did not name Lee. But he was right.
Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death -- see the speech!-- he also explained that if he was born and lived where they did, he would not know what to do either.
But he did know that first we must stop those who were already killing, already invading, already at war to spread slavery.
Lincoln correctly noted that slavery always and only spread by violence. Always and only was maintained by violence.
Always by violence - meaning torture, bounty hunters, paid killer, trained dogs to find and injure slaves-- overseers (men whose job it was to inflict the most pain).
Lee was part of that violence.
Lee employed bounty hunters. Lee used trained dog, via his bounty hunters. Lee installed whipping posts. Lee screamed as slaves as he had them tortured.
Lee even sold children as punishment to the mother.
Lee owned white looking slaves girl -- as Pryour revealed.
Torture to slaves -- terrorizing slaves, buying women kidnaped in the North--helping Jeff Davis in Davis insane obsession to spread slavery to all of the USA.
Slave owners deserved to be kicked death showed how serious Lincoln was..
WE DO IT FOR GOD
Slave owners -- including Lee-- claimed they enslaved blacks for God. Gods will
"SPIRITUAL LIBERTY"
The letter itself blatantly defends the torture of slaves. Fools miss it because that part is not in the first paragraph.
Stunning how many teachers have been so stupid not to even read the entire letter!
Pryor does not make fun of that stupidity in her book--- just in the lecture. .
So teachers make their students dumber. That's not a plot, by the teachers, that's just the result of lazy teachers who don't read well or closely.
In that letter -- to his wife --Lee claims those against slavery "were on an evil course" wrote Lee.
He also wrote slaves "must endure painful discipline."
If that were not enough, Lee wrote in the same letter that slavery was "SPIRITUAL LIBERTY"
THE ONLY LEGAL RESPONSE
The only response to slavery -- Lee wrote-- was to pray.
You would know that already -- if you were taught what was going on then.
At the time, South had made it a crime to even speak -- to speak!--against slavery. It was a crime to preach against slavery.
The punishment to whites who where caught preaching against slavery could be arrested, tried, and punished by torture -- public torture.
Nearly everyone alive at the time knew that. But your teacher never hinted at it. Again -- not a plot-- just the result of lazy poorly educated teachers.
Back to the Lee letter -- Lee was writing about "the Presidents" message. Do you even know who was President -- or what the President's message was?
Hell no, and you probably can't find a high school teacher than knows why that is important.
Lee wrote that letter in response to President Pierce support of Jeff Davis's 2000 or so hired Texas men, men sent to Kansas to terrorize and kill Kansas Citizens.
95% of Kansas citizens were against slavery. Davis -- backed by President Pierce, not only sent his paid Texas men -- Davis sent US troops to protect his paid Texas men.
So to understand the letter to his wife, you would need to know all this.
Your teacher or text book would have to ALREADY show you Davis's boasting of invading and killing to spread slavery --and ALREADY show you President Pierce's open support for both the paid Texas men sent to terrorize and kill Kansas Citizens -- and President Peirce's approval for US troops to protect those paid killers.
That is what Lee was referring too -- is that the only response to slavery is to pray. You could not speak, or be openly against slavery.
Jeff Davis's 2000 paid Texas men arrived starting in May 1956
It's important to know -- Jeff Davis first sent paid men to invade Kansas in 1854.
Those 1854 men (led by US Senator David Rice Atchison) did not get the job done: many of them went home when Kansas citizens fought back.
Davis and Atchison told the men "Yankees" were cowards and would run away like cowards. It ended up the opposite. Davis's men, led by Atchison, ran away in the end.
There job was to terrorize and kill enough Kansas citizens to force Kansas to be a slave state.
Never mind that 95% of Kansas Citizens were anti -slavery. Davis justified violent spread of slavery, regardless of vote or wish of Kansas citizens.
Remember that %-- 95% Ninety five percent of Kansas Citizens were against slavery. And many of them fought back. Davis and Atchison got crowds of stupid chits to cheer -- Davis even hired paid Texas men -- and Davis sent US troops to protect the paid killers, with support of President Pierce.
Lee's letter to his wife -- was at this time! Lee wrote his support for slavery, support for Davis's paid killers, support for violent spread of slavery -- and support for US troops sent to protect the killers.
Now you know what Lee was writing about ---the violent spread of slavery -- and why only -- only prayer was a legit response to slavery. It was a law -- punishable by public torture -- to speak against slavery.
It was a crime -- punishable by law to resist the spread of slavery. Did your stupid teacher mention any of this?
No. Not a word. Again -it's not a plot. It's stupid teachers and text books. No one told them either.
Now you know. Thank me later.
____________________________
HOW DID DAVIS AND LEE JUSTIFY
THE VIOLENT SPREAD OF SLAVERY?
THE VIOLENT SPREAD OF SLAVERY?
How did Davis justify the paid men, the invasions, the murders, the terror -- and then also justify sending US troops to help the Texas killers?
You should already know this -- it is profoundly important.
Nothing was more important.
Davis justified the invasions and killings by two things:
1) The bible.
2) The Dred Scott decision.
3) Remember, South leaders made it a crime to preach or speak openly against slavery
4) Remember, South leaders made it a crime to own anti slavery publications
5) Remember, Robert E Lee was in full support of all t his. He knew all about Davis's ongoing war - ongoing murders, ongoing invasions -- to spread slavery
You had no clue. That's not your fault.
Slap your teachers, even though this was not a plot -- it was stupid teachers repeating bullshit.
Even preachers could be and were tortured for preaching against slavery..
South lunatics created those laws since 1830s! The logic was this - GOD ordained slavery.
Slavery is a "BLESSING" -- a BLESSING --and to speak or preach against it was therefore a crime.
It was a crime to own a book or pamphlet again slavery -- all
Furthermore
__________________________________
IN HER LECTURE NOT LONG BEFORE HER DEATH.......
In a Virginia lecture not long before her death, Pryor announced that "the duty of a historian is to expose to ugly."
That Pryor would not do -- but given the adoration of a man who tortured small slaves and bought women (free women in the North) from kidnappers -- Pyror did as well as anyone could.
To be candid about the sadism, the tortures, the bounty hunters, etc, meant certainly that she would be hated -- likely scorned by the Lee family, scorned and the millions of people who stupidly (as it turns out) believed the 160 years of nonsense about Lee.
__________________________________
How would Pyor tell the world that Lee ordered his own soldiers shot -- (in battle!)- if they ran?
Who knew he ordered his OWN soldiers during battle?
The number was zero. No one knew.
No one taught that. No one hinted that.
But Lee did it -- and Lee wrote it down.
__________________________________
Lee wrote it down.
The Lee family should, of course, just publish Lee's slave ledgers, and publish Lee's orders to kill his own troops who ran during battle (as Stalin trick, too)
No doubt those who adore Lee anyway, will trash Pryor. That is human nature.
__________________________________
BUYING OTHERS?
Just one of over 88 amazing revelations Pryor made -- carefully yes -- is that Lee How would Pryor tell the world that Lee bought women, free women in the North who were never slaves, until Lee bought them from bounty hunters illegally.
The answer -- Pryor would tell us very carefully -- via euphemism or double speak.
Regarding Lee's white looking slave girls, Pryor danced around that too.
"Lee always wanted to be a Planter."
"Lee always wanted to be a planter" is a clever way to deceive others, as humans often seek to do. Pryor necessarily used such euphemism to fool, to give the wrong impression, to readers.
Planter is a term, as Pryor knew well, but made sure her readers did not. Planter meant the owner of a large plantation -- a large slave farm -
LEE HUMILIATED BY HIS CREEPY FATHER
Lee's famous father (Light Horse Harry Lee) lost the Plantation of Lee's youth, due to his criminal actions and fraud.
Pryor would eventually tell her readers, (see below) Lee seemed obsessed to gather the former "glory" and status of being a slave owner --of many slaves -- aka Planter.
.
_____________________________
Lee did not grow cotton.
His "cash crop" was human beings. From selling them, buying then, and breeding them to each other.
It was only the "Deep South" that grew cotton. Lee was a business.
But Lee, contrary to myth, bought more slaves. Lee controlled all his wife's slaves and his bought more
Lee also purchased humans from bounty hunters -- even from "kidnappers" who kidnapped free blacks in Washington DC or New York.
There was a thriving -- meaning profitable --business-- to kidnap free blacks, and sell those victims -- to Lee, and men like Lee.
Pryor cleverly tells us that Lee bought "others." She wrote, "Technically Lee may have broken the law."
Pryor quickly blames "the paperwork," specifically "time consuming paperwork.
Pryor knew better -- there was no paperwork, time consuming or otherwise -- to buy women who were kidnapped illegally.
Pryor had to make up a narrative somehow --a narrative to blame someone other thanLee. So she did.
Pryor refused to call them "slave ledgers." Yet those slave ledgers that is where she found the prices, dates, names the women and children he bought at slave auction.
She even knew and mentioned the name of the slave auction he used most.
____________________________________________________
We all heard it. We were all taught it. Lee "hated slavery" even wrote to his wife that slavery was "evil." (more about that letter, below)
Lee was beloved by his "servants." When he tried to free his wife's slaves, they refused to leave.
We heard that Lee prayed with black women -- when no one else would.
We heard Lee fought "for his state" and "for states rights."
We heard that Lee "only cared to bring young men to Christ."
_________________________________
Nothing was too goofy, too fake, too much a lie that folks would bother to check.
Turns out -- none, none -- of that bullshit was true. . None.
Nor did Lee himself claim those things. Nor did newspapers at the time say such things.
The goofy ass lies, the goofy ass exaggerations came after the South lost.
__________________________________
Lee's supposed "definitive" biographer, Douglas Southall Freeman "They loved him"most of all." the That is a lie and utter nonsense.
As Lee's slave ledgers showed -- Lee's slaves said he "was the worst man we ever saw."
To be continued and edited.
____________________________________________________
How do you know the child is a male? He had white looking slave girls of various ages, and Pryor tells us that "increasingly" whites (meaning Lee) were enslaving other whites.
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea if the child is male or female. You apparently hope that by enslaving white males, instead of females, that Lee seems less of a vile POS he is. Lee had slaves, FROM BIRTH, that looked white. Too complicated? If he did not own them from birth, he would have had to buy the white looking females at auction.
This whole notion of Lee's ownership of whites --as worse than owning blacks -- shows a basic misunderstanding of pain. Do you not think enslaving, torturing, raping, and selling the children of black women is equally as vile as enslaving torturing raping and selling the children of white women?
Clearly you do not know that enslaving of whites was a "growing thing" in the South as the rapes of slave women by white men progressed. And as we know, from Pryor herself, rape was common.
Common. Rape. Was. Common.
Those rapes -- then when that female child is old enough, they raped her. This is clearly the case not only because of written evidence at the time, but the growing number of white looking slaves. White looking FEMALE slaves, we know, were prized and priced higher. I bet you did not know that?
Do you think men who tortured slaves, raped them, bought women at auction, etc etc, suddenly stopped their actions and said "Oh my God, this child is white looking -- let us hurry to get her to a white woman for her care and upbringing"
Hell no. ANd remember we have evidence that white looking women were valued at auctions, and went to men for sex slaves, and to whore houses, often in New Orleans.
Why would white looking, or light skinned women, be sold to whore houses? Because whore houses found -- according to written evidence at the time --that white men preferred to use a whore that was not dark, with negroid nose. They were taught, since birth, that black was a vile color for a human. But lighter skinned women, with white features -- they could make those women be prostitutes, without pay, until they died.
Lee was part of that.
The picture of the old negro and his mulatto baby grandson is still here, but apparently Mark no longer claims that this is a female bastard of Lee's, soon to be abused and whipped.
ReplyDeleteAP are you joking?
ReplyDeleteI never said Lee fathered anyone by a slave -- others have said so. WE don't know for sure.
But SOMEONE white -- at Lee's slave farm did impregnate slave women and when those slaves were born -- white looking or not, they were kept and treated as slaves. Meaning they could be raped, tortured, sold, as Lee felt the urge to do so.
The point is WHITE women were enslaved by Lee. So that crap he said about slavery being good for blacks, he enslaved whites too. And he knew that someone (his sons, maybe himself) were bouncing on slave girls.
SLavery was a gold mine for slave owners -- and a pleasure palace. They could and did do anything -- make the women (or men) do anything, and that means sexual things too.
Not having been born yet, I have no idea what Lee did or did not do. But this piece is so full of virulent hatred by the author that I put it down, unfinished.
ReplyDeleteHard to look at the action of Robert Lee and not see the horrible crimes this oath breaker and traitor to his country this guy is guilty of.
ReplyDeleteWow. I knew, through my own research and that of respected scholars, much of this. But not too this extent. Thank you for your clarity and sharing. We can only hope that someday day all those documents will be released.
ReplyDeleteI just posted this to my blog https://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2020/07/down-with-robert-e-lee.html
ReplyDeleteThis post was what got me started. Thanks.
I never could reconcile all of the lofty, admirable, and righteous things I heard about Lee from the man who sided with slavers to the extent that he took up arms to fight against a lawful government that opposed slavery. I couldn't understand how he could serve in that role yet be lionized as a paragon of virtue.
ReplyDeleteNow, at long last, I see the real man and not the sanitized, revisionist version that those from the South have successfully foisted upon us for so long now. Now, at long last, I see Lee as he really was, and from his own words no less.
Let's hope and pray that the Lee descendants do the right thing and open up the trove of material to historians that will fill in the blanks on this important period of our history.
I surely am not the only one that was confused about the Lee image versus the Lee combatant. Let the truth be told.
One more thing:
The naming of Southern military bases after traitors who were responsible for the deaths of so many young men is a stain on the honor of our great country and shouldn't be tolerated for even one more day.