Who are these Albinos who prefer to be called "Whites"?

Which of course is what Albino means.

Just like Negro means Black.

The main tribes of Asia's Albinos are the Germanics, the Slav's, and the Turks; with many subtribes for each main tribe. Germanics mostly settled in Western Europe: among them are the Angles, Saxons, Vandals, Alans, Goths, Visigoths (western Goths), Lombards, and many more.

In 568 the Lombards entered Italy and lived there in an independent kingdom until they were overthrown by Charlemagne (Charles the Great) in 774. This marked the beginning of the last Black Empire in Europe - THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. It had no permanent capitol; but in 1440 Vienna became the resident city of the Habsburg dynasty. It eventually grew to become the de facto capital of the Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) in 1437, and a cultural center for arts and science, music and fine cuisine.

Slav's mostly settled in Eastern Europe and Western Asia: chief among them the Rus (Russians), Slavs are subdivided into East Slavs (chiefly Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians), West Slavs (chiefly Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Wends, or Sorbs), and South Slavs (chiefly Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins). Bulgarians, though of mixed origin like the Hungarians, speak a Slavic language and are often designated as South Slavs.

Turks include the Khazars (Todays Jews), Seljuk Turks, (also known as Seldjuk, Seldjuq or Seljuq), who are a major branch of the Oghuz Turks and a dynasty that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries. The Seljuks migrated from the north Iranian provinces in Central Asia into mainland Iran formerly known as Persia. The Altai, Azerbaijanis, Balkar, Bashkir, Dolgan, Karachay, Karakalpaks, Kazakhs, Khakass, Kipchak, Kumyk, Kyrgyz, Nogay, Shor, Tatars, Tofalar, Turkmen, Turks, Tyvans (Tuvans), Uighurs, and Uzbeks.

^John Keilman is an Albino - consider the source.

A middle school drama teacher is suing Evanston/Skokie School District 65 for discrimination, saying its race-conscious training, policies and curriculum violate federal law through “conditioning individuals to see each other’s skin color first and foremost, then pitting different racial groups against each other.”

Stacy Deemar, who is white, says in her complaint the district has used teacher training sessions to segregate and impugn white people, calling them inherently racist and privileged, and has compelled teachers to pass on those lessons to children.

“Fostering racial identities, promoting the idea that they are in conflict, and perpetuating divisive stereotypes pits teachers and children against one another based on the color of their skin,” the lawsuit says. " … They teach them that their whole identity comes from the color of their skin. They teach them to hate each other. They teach them not only how to be racist, but that they should be racist.”

A district spokeswoman said administrators have not been served with a copy of the lawsuit — it was filed Tuesday in federal court — and had no comment. The lawsuit is the latest broadside against educational policies that address racism and inequity, often lumped under the inaccurate label “critical race theory.” Parents in some districts have jammed school board meetings to protest the concept, even when administrators say it’s not part of their curriculum.

District 65, which serves a deep blue corner of the North Shore, is upfront about its race-conscious policies, saying on its website that it is aiming for “the elimination of bias, particularly racism and cultural bias, as factors affecting student achievement and learning experiences.”

But the lawsuit claims the district’s pursuit of equity has tilted into unlawful discrimination. The complaint says the district’s anti-racist training requires teachers “to accept that white individuals are loud, authoritative … (and) controlling” and “to understand, ‘To be less white is to be less racially oppressive.’”

“If teachers oppose, question, or ‘disengage’ from those teachings, District 65 blatantly calls them ‘racist,’” the lawsuit says. Such stances also infuse the curriculum, according to the lawsuit, including a children’s book that says, “Racism is a white person’s problem and we are all caught up in it.”

Deemar says the district has discriminated against her and created a hostile work environment through segregated staff meetings and race-based policies. She seeks to have the district “remedy the effects of the unconstitutional, illegal, discriminatory conduct” alleged in the lawsuit.

Yoli Joseph, president of the Evanston/Skokie PTA Council, said the lawsuit’s claims sound like they stem from personal discomfort with the “unpacking work” needed to combat racism. “Their fragility, their emotional response to being asked to look at something that historically has not been asked of them, has been an uncomfortable experience,” she said. “But I know so many people in the district who are so incredibly supportive of this work that it’s really unfair to center (a negative view).”

Deemer is being represented by the Georgia-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, which takes on conservative causes across the country. General counsel Kimberly Hermann said it has moved from college free speech issues to the K-12 level in conjunction with Christopher Rufo, an activist and filmmaker who has popularized the fight against educational polices he says reflect critical race theory.

Responding to Rufo’s Twitter posts about the lawsuit Wednesday, Hermann tweeted that more litigation is on the way.

“The fight for the American Republic is in our schools,” she wrote. “This is the first of a series of lawsuits coming from (the foundation) to stop public schools’ discriminatory race-based programming.”

jkeilman@chicagotribune.com

^Albino Hypocrisy^

Albinos have been committing moral outrages and crimes against humanity for the last 500 years, but now they don’t want anyone to tell their children about it?

How strange, it seems like only yesterday that Albinos brought their children WITH them to enjoy their debauchery in death. Why? Because to them, and all degenerates, it’s normal behavior, and worthy to be taught to the youth as a tradition.

Gee, wonder what made them change their minds?

______________________________________

We suspect that it may have something to do with their past

prey and victims; now being able to properly arm themselves.

On January 20, 2017 Donald Trump was inaugurated President of the United States.

With him he also brought people, policys and culture of.....

- Sexual Misconduct, Harassment, & Bullying
– White Supremacy, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Xenophobia
– Public Statements / Tweets
– Collusion with Russia & Obstruction of Justice
– Trump Staff & Administration
– Trump Family Business Dealings
– Policy
– Environment

As a reminder - these are the crimes a Traitor can commit against his country

See how many you find Donald Trump commited

SEDITION = conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

TREASON ( a traitor) = the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

INSURRECTION = a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Rather than pontificate yet again upon the motives of Donald Trump’s supporters, I’ll let a few of them explain themselves in their own words.

Here, then, is “Robert” with a comparative analysis of the 44th and 45th presidents:

“President Trump has accomplished more positive things for this nation in less than two years than the last three have accomplished in twenty plus years. After the past eight years of a Muslim Marxist in the White House this nation could not survive another demwit in the White House. … Could you please list one thing the demwit party has done for the black people in America other than hand out government freeies for their continued votes?”

And here’s “Gary’s” take on demographic change:
“[America] has a constitution which guarantees equal rights for all and yet people like you hungar for change that puts people like me in the back of the bus. You seem egar to know what it would be like to be in the driver’s seat. You need look no further than Zimbabwe and South Africa. When people like you started driving the bus, the wheels came off. That’s what terrifies people like me.”

This column is presented as a service for those progressive readers who are struggling with something I said in this space. Namely, that I see no point in trying to reason with Trump voters. I first wrote that over a month ago, and I am still hearing how “disappointed” they are at my refusal to reach out. So I thought it might be valuable to hear from the people I’ve failed to reach out to.

I’m sure some of you think those emails were cherry-picked to highlight the intolerance of Trump voters. They weren’t. They are, in fact, a representative sampling from a single day in May, culled by my assistant, Judi.

It’s still an article of faith for many that the Trump phenomenon was born out of fiscal insecurity, the primal scream of working people left behind by a changing economy. But I don’t think I’ve ever, not once, seen an email from a Trump supporter who explained himself in terms of the factory or the coal mine shutting down.

I have, however, heard from hundreds like “Matthew,” who worries about “immigrants” and “Gerald,” who thinks people of color have an “alliance” against him. Such people validate the verdict of a growing body of scholarship that says, in the words of a new study by University of Kansas professors David N. Smith and Eric Hanley, “The decisive reason that white, male, older and less educated voters were disproportionately pro-Trump is that they shared his prejudices and wanted domineering, aggressive leaders”

Did you see the GOP commercial in the 2021 Baseball All Star game? The lying Negro telling us that 69% of Blacks support ID for voting is Melvin Everson of Georgia. He is a former Republican member of the Georgia House of Representatives, representing District 106 (an Albino district), from September 27, 2005, to 2011. He did not seek re-election in 2010. Everson's professional experience includes working as an Associate Pastor with the Salem Missionary Baptist Church, Probation Officer with Professional Probation Services from 2005-2006, Customer Relations Supervisor for the J. C. Penney Catalog from 1988-2003 and Unit Manager with Guardsman Security from 1983-1988. He served in the United States Army Reserve from 1976 to 1999. Sounds like he might also have experience flipping for Mcdonalds. Just the kind of "Big Brain" Negro Albino degenerates love - think Clarence Thomas.

The real cost and purpose of Voter ID laws

Voter identification laws are a part of an ongoing strategy to roll back decades of progress on voting rights. Thirty-four states have identification requirements at the polls. Seven states have strict photo ID laws, under which voters must present one of a limited set of forms of government-issued photo ID in order to cast a regular ballot – no exceptions.

Voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote, reduce participation, and stand in direct opposition to our country's trend of including more Americans in the democratic process. Many Americans do not have one of the forms of identification states acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card.

Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to Vote; Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification. 1-Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID. Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2

The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.

3-Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points, which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5

Voter ID Laws Are Discriminatory - Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6

States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.

Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters. Voter ID laws reduce turnout among minority voters. Several studies, including a 2014 GAO study, have found that photo ID laws have a particularly depressive effect on turnout among racial minorities and other vulnerable groups, worsening the participation gap between voters of color and whites.8

Voter ID Requirements are a Solution in Search of a Problem: In-person fraud is vanishingly rare. A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast.

Identified instances of “fraud” are honest mistakes. So-called cases of in-person impersonation voter “fraud” are almost always the product of an elections worker or a voter making an honest mistake, and that even these mistakes are extremely infrequent. Voter ID laws are a waste of taxpayer dollars. States incur sizeable costs when implementing voter ID laws, including the cost of educating the public, training poll workers, and providing IDs to voters.

Texas spent nearly $2 million on voter education and outreach efforts following passage of its Voter ID law. Indiana spent over $10 million to produce free ID cards between 2007 and 2010.

he ACLU has led the charge against Voter ID in several states, challenging voter ID laws in in states such as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. For more information, please contact Robert Hoffman at rhoffman@aclu.org or visit https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/fighting-voter-id-requirements to learn more.

As an aside: part of the lies Albinos tell Blacks is that Abraham Lincoln was a supporter of Blacks:

The Wade-Davis Bill required that 50 percent of a confederate state's white males take a loyalty oath for the State to be readmitted to the Union. In addition, these states were required to give blacks the right to vote. Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, but President Lincoln chose not to sign it, killing the bill with a pocket veto.

Note the similarities with President Donald Trump: Both came to the presidency as "Functioning" closet degenerate Racists. But due to catching the pandemic Virus, they both left office as little more than babbling Idiots.

Grant and Lee

How many of us has watched a Television program like "Law and Order" and watched Fred Thompson, a former U.S. senator for Tennessee, and an actor who starred on “Law & Order” from 2002-2007: he would sometimes wax poetically about the respectful, perhaps even fond relationship between General Grant and General lee. All of that of course is just typical degenerate's lying, intended to normalize the degeneracy and greed of Confederates willing to destroy the nation just so they wouldn't have to pay wages to workers just as they have to do today.

Today hired farmworkers are from the southern states, but mostly foreign-born people from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean who leave their permanent homes to seek employment in agriculture. They typically move northward, following the growing and harvesting seasons. Those lacking in pigmentation must unfortunately wear heavy uncomfortable clothing for protection from the Sun.

As to Lee: the evidence is that Grant despised Lee: he did not restore Lee's U.S. citizenship as he easily could have done. But Grant did seize Lee's plantation to bury his dead soldiers in; it is today "Arlington National Cemetery". As one can gather by just looking at Lee, as with Trump, one can clearly see; there is not much there, just enough to fool bottom dwelling degenerates. Like everything else associated with Trump and the "Southern Gentleman" facade, it is a lie, they were just simple minded, greedy degenerates; as they are today.

Even Lee's beloved home was not really his: it was his wife's. Mary Lee inherited Arlington, a 1,100-acre estate from her father, George Washington Parke Custis, upon his death in 1857. Custis, the grandson of Martha Washington, had been adopted by George Washington when Custis' father died in 1781. Beginning in 1802, Custis started building Arlington, as his showplace mansion. When Custis died, Arlington passed to Mary Lee, his only surviving child, who had grown up, married and raised seven children and buried her parents there. In correspondence, her husband Lee, referred to the place as "our dear home," the spot "where my attachments are more strongly placed than at any other place in the world." If possible, his wife felt an even stronger attachment to the property.

_______________________________________________________________

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming announced they will stop giving unemployed workers the extra $300 in benefits provided by the federal government.

To the pathetic "POOR" degenerate Albino: See - it was never about color,

it was always about others - of ANY color - making money for THEM!

History is supposedly written by the winners; so why is it that the losers of the Civil War were able to insert so many lies into American history?

It was only a matter of time before the current climate of civilian unrest led back to the U.S. military: and its 10 Army bases named for Confederate traitor generals, all spread throughout the former Confederacy.
Whether to rename them continues to be a contentious political issue, but the practical-minded among us have moved on. If they are renamed, what will they be called?

1. Fort Benning (Georgia)
This Columbus, Georgia, base was named after Confederate Gen. Henry L. Benning, who fought against the Union armies at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Antietam and Gettysburg. It was named for him in 1918, while many Civil War veterans were still alive.

2. Fort Lee (Virginia)
So what to do with Fort Lee, Virginia, now that Fort William C. Lee is in Georgia? The current Fort Lee was named for Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Even though the federal government seized his estate and turned it into Arlington National Cemetery, it still somehow thought it appropriate to name a base after him.

Renaming Fort Lee to Fort Grant would send a positive message to the people who look up to the U.S. Army. Grant owned one slave in his life, acquired from his father-in-law, and set the man free in less than a year.

3. Fort Bragg (North Carolina)
Besides being named for a Confederate general, Fort Bragg should be renamed because it's the home of Army Special Forces, the 75th Ranger Regiment and the Air Force Combat Control School -- and it's named for American history's worst general. Bragg lost almost every battle he commanded, always took the opposite of good advice and once even misplaced a line of men. Is this who we want the home of Army Special Forces to be named for?

4. Fort Hood (Texas)
This Killeen, Texas-based installation is named for John Bell Hood, a Confederate who wasn't even from Texas. Known for his bravery, all that bravado didn't help him even slow down Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman on his way to burn down the South and everything they loved. Surely, Texans have a number of people they would prefer to honor over a Confederate.

5. Fort Polk (Louisiana)
What does one rename the most reviled duty station in all of the U.S. Army? Surely, we can honor someone other than a guy with no previous military experience whose Civil War claim to fame is that he died in it.

Louisiana is one of the most unique states in the Union, with a history unlike any other. But again, for sheer coolness factor, we could rename this for Union Col. Algernon Sidney Badger. Badger was from Massachusetts but served at the Battle of Mobile Bay and ended up in Louisiana. He liked it so much, he stayed there when the war was over. Plus, the symbolism of a badger killing a snake is too good to pass up.

Who wouldn't want to be stationed at Fort Badger?
But the top candidate for Fort Polk's new name has to be William C.C. Claiborne, the first American governor of Louisiana. He was conciliatory toward native tribes under his jurisdiction and tried to secure clemency for the captured organizers of the largest slave revolt in U.S. history. He also negotiated for the help of the pirate Jean Lafitte for the defense of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

6. Fort Gordon (Georgia)
Only in the old Confederacy could you be hailed a hero upon your return from losing a war. Besides getting that particular participant trophy, John Brown Gordon's career can't be discussed without mentioning how many times he was wounded in action.

Georgia was home to Henry O. Flipper, the first African American graduate of West Point. Can you imagine the level of harassment this man endured? Commissioned and sent to the frontier areas, he did his job well until he was improperly accused of embezzling quartermaster funds and court-martialed, an injustice to which the Army later admitted. President Bill Clinton would later pardon him.

Henry O. Flipper

7. Fort Pickett (Virginia)
Fort Pickett is a National Guard Base in Virginia named after a guy who led one of the most ill-advised infantry charges in history. Not just in American history, but all of world history. While Maj. Gen. George Pickett didn't order the charge at Gettysburg (Robert E. Lee did, despite all advice against it), his name got slapped on it, whether he liked it or not. Pickett's charge led to the defeat of the Confederacy at Gettysburg, a loss from which the South couldn't recover and ultimately ended their war with loss.

8. Fort A.P. Hill (Virginia)
Although one of the more capable commanders on the list, this Confederate general's accomplishments include not being Stonewall Jackson, getting shot seven days before the war ended and having gonorrhea for 21 years.

9. Fort Rucker (Alabama)
Fort Rucker is named for Col. Edmund Rucker, a Confederate Army chef who designed a way for Confederate troops to live on eating grass. While that's not even remotely true, no one outside of Fort Rucker knows that or cares to Google it. Rucker wasn't even from Alabama, he just made a lot of money there.

Maj. Gen. Oliver W. Dillard

The first suggestion for renaming the base goes to Gen. Oliver W. Dillard, the fifth Black American flag officer in Army history, the first black intelligence general and a National Intelligence Hall of Famer. He joined during World War II and served through Korea, Vietnam and most of the Cold War.

But if time in service is what we're looking for, look no further than Alabama's own Sgt. Maj. Gilbert "Hashmark" Johnson. Johnson first enlisted in the Army in 1923 and was discharged as a corporal six years later. After four years as a civilian, he again enlisted, this time in the Navy. "Hashmark" was aboard the USS Wyoming when the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor, but later that year, he was one of the first black men to join the United States Marine Corps.

Johnson spent another 17 years in the Corps, with a total of 32 years in service. He earned the name "Hashmark" because he had more service stripes than stripes indicating his rank.

10. Camp Beauregard (Louisiana)
Louisiana's National Guard runs this base, named for Confederate Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, one of the South's most able commanders -- and one who would end up arguing for racial cooperation after the Civil War's end.
While that's admirable, there's a good chance he just wanted the votes of newly freed black men against Reconstruction-era radical Republicans, so let's not go crazy about how reconstructed Beauregard was. If we're going to choose a Louisianan with questionable motives, let's name the camp after the aforementioned pirate Jean Lafitte.

Who wears the same facial expression as your First Sergeant. Lafitte turned from sailor/pirate/merchant to soldier in nearly a heartbeat to help the Americans defend the port city of New Orleans from outside attack, and if that doesn't sound like the National Guard, I don't know what does.

Note the Black man painting over the hideous Lee

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency

is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

By Adam Serwer June 4, 2017

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed. Memorial Day has the tendency to conjure up old arguments about the Civil War. That’s understandable; it was created to mourn the dead of a war in which the Union was nearly destroyed, when half the country rose up in rebellion in defense of slavery.

This year, the removal of Lee’s statue in New Orleans has inspired a new round of commentary about Lee, not to mention protests on his behalf by white supremacists. The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.
There is little truth in this.

Lee was a devout Christian, and historians regard him as an accomplished tactician. But despite his ability to win individual battles, his decision to fight a conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North is considered by many historians to have been a fatal strategic error. But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as the historian David Blight writes, it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system.”

There are unwitting victims of this campaign—those who lack the knowledge to separate history from sentiment. Then there are those whose reverence for Lee relies on replacing the actual Lee with a mythical figure who never truly existed.
In the Richmond Times Dispatch, R. David Cox wrote that “for white supremacist protesters to invoke his name violates Lee’s most fundamental convictions.” In the conservative publication Townhall, Jack Kerwick concluded that Lee was “among the finest human beings that has ever walked the Earth.” John Daniel Davidson, in an essay for The Federalist, opposed the removal of the Lee statute in part on the grounds that Lee “arguably did more than anyone to unite the country after the war and bind up its wounds.” Praise for Lee of this sort has flowed forth from past historians and presidents alike.

This is too divorced from Lee’s actual life to even be classed as fan fiction; it is simply historical illiteracy.
White supremacy does not “violate” Lee’s “most fundamental convictions.” White supremacy was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions. Lee was a slave owner—his own views on slavery were explicated in an 1856 letter that is often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of abolitionist. In the letter, he describes slavery as “a moral & political evil,” but goes on to explain that:

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.

The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most important, better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

Lee’s cruelty as a slave master was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.” The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the enslaved—it was, as my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates described it, “a kind of murder.”

After the war, thousands of the emancipated searched desperately for kin lost to the market for human flesh, fruitlessly for most. In Reconstruction, the historian Eric Foner quotes a Freedmen’s Bureau agent who notes of the emancipated, “In their eyes, the work of emancipation was incomplete until the families which had been dispersed by slavery were reunited.”
Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington, Virginia, plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a slave revolt, in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Every state that seceded mentioned slavery as the cause in their declarations of secession. Lee’s beloved Virginia was no different, accusing the federal government of “perverting” its powers “not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.” Lee’s decision to fight for the South can only be described as a choice to fight for the continued existence of human bondage in America—even though for the Union, it was not at first a war for emancipation.

During the invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia enslaved free black Americans and brought them back to the South as property. Pryor writes that “evidence links virtually every infantry and cavalry unit in Lee’s army” to the abduction of free black Americans, “with the activity under the supervision of senior officers.”

Soldiers under Lee’s command at the Battle of the Crater in 1864 massacred black Union soldiers who tried to surrender. Then, in a spectacle hatched by Lee’s senior corps commander, A. P. Hill, the Confederates paraded the Union survivors through the streets of Petersburg to the slurs and jeers of the southern crowd. Lee never discouraged such behavior. As the historian Richard Slotkin wrote in No Quarter: The Battle of the Crater, “his silence was permissive.”

The presence of black soldiers on the field of battle shattered every myth that the South’s slave empire was built on: the happy docility of slaves, their intellectual inferiority, their cowardice, their inability to compete with white people. As Pryor writes, “fighting against brave and competent Black Americans challenged every underlying tenet of southern society.” The Confederate response to this challenge was to visit every possible atrocity and cruelty upon black soldiers whenever possible, from enslavement to execution.

As the historian James McPherson recounts in Battle Cry of Freedom, in October of that same year, Lee proposed an exchange of prisoners with the Union general Ulysses S. Grant. “Grant agreed, on condition that black soldiers be exchanged ‘the same as white soldiers.’” Lee’s response was that “Negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” Because slavery was the cause for which Lee fought, he could hardly be expected to easily concede, even at the cost of the freedom of his own men, that black people could be treated as soldiers and not things. Grant refused the offer, telling Lee that “government is bound to secure to all persons received into her armies the rights due to soldiers.” Despite its desperate need for soldiers, the Confederacy did not relent from this position until a few months before Lee’s surrender.

After the war, Lee did advise defeated southerners not to rise up against the North. Lee might have become a rebel once more, and urged the South to resume fighting—as many of his former comrades wanted him to. But even in this task Grant, in 1866, regarded his former rival as falling short, saying that Lee was “setting an example of forced acquiescence so grudging and pernicious in its effects as to be hardly realized.”

Nor did Lee’s defeat lead to an embrace of racial egalitarianism. The war was not about slavery, Lee insisted later, but if it were about slavery, it was only out of Christian devotion that white southerners fought to keep black people enslaved. Lee told a New York Herald reporter, in the midst of arguing in favor of somehow removing black people from the South (“disposed of,” in his words), “that unless some humane course is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles, you do a gross wrong and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free. And it is only this consideration that has led the wisdom, intelligence and Christianity of the South to support and defend the institution up to this time.”

Lee had beaten or ordered his own slaves to be beaten for the crime of wanting to be free; he fought for the preservation of slavery; his army kidnapped free black people at gunpoint and made them unfree—but all of this, he insisted, had occurred only because of the great Christian love the South held for black Americans. Here we truly understand Frederick Douglass’s admonition that “between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference.” Privately, according to the correspondence collected by his own family, Lee counseled others to hire white labor instead of the freedmen, observing “that wherever you find the Negro, everything is going down around him, and wherever you find a white man, you see everything around him improving.”

In another letter, Lee wrote, “You will never prosper with blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to yours. I wish them no evil in the world—on the contrary, will do them every good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests are naturally with the whites.”

Publicly, Lee argued against the enfranchisement of black Americans, and raged against Republican efforts to enforce racial equality in the South. Lee told Congress that black people lacked the intellectual capacity of white people and “could not vote intelligently,” and that granting them suffrage would “excite unfriendly feelings between the two races.” Lee explained that “the Negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power.” To the extent that Lee believed in reconciliation, it was among white people, and only on the precondition that black people would be denied political power and therefore the ability to shape their own fate.

Lee is not remembered as an educator, but his life as president of Washington College (later Washington and Lee) is tainted as well. According to Pryor, students at Washington formed their own chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, and were known by the local Freedmen’s Bureau to attempt to abduct and rape black schoolgirls from the nearby black schools.

There were at least two attempted lynchings by Washington students during Lee’s tenure, and Pryor writes that “the number of accusations against Washington College boys indicates that he either punished the racial harassment more laxly than other misdemeanors, or turned a blind eye to it,” adding that he “did not exercise the near imperial control he had at the school, as he did for more trivial matters, such as when the boys threatened to take unofficial Christmas holidays.” In short, Lee was as indifferent to crimes of violence toward black people carried out by his students as he was when they were carried out by his soldiers..

Lee died in 1870, as Democrats and ex-Confederates were commencing a wave of terrorist violence that would ultimately reimpose their domination over the southern states. The KKK was founded in 1866; there is no evidence Lee ever spoke up against it. On the contrary, he darkly intimated in his interview with the Herald that the South might be moved to violence again if peace did not proceed on its terms. That was prescient.

The white supremacists who have protested on Lee’s behalf are not betraying his legacy. In fact, they have every reason to admire him. Lee - whose devotion to white supremacy outshone his loyalty to his country, is the embodiment of everything they stand for. Tribe and race over country is the core of white nationalism, and racists can embrace Lee in good conscience. The question is why anyone else would.

The Thirteenth Amendment

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865, and proclaimed on December 18.

Section 1 & 2

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2 - Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.