I did not know this…
My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to
“lay it on well,”an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.
—Testimony of Wesley Norris (1866); reprinted in John W. Blassingame (ed.): Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press (ISBN 0-8071-0273-3). 467-468.
N
or was I aware of the relationship between the Lee family and George Washington Parke Custis‘ former slaves, William and Rosabella Burke (who, along with four children, were freed by G.W.P. Custis and departed for a new life in Liberia in November 1853). Some of the letters between the Burke family and Mary Custis Lee can be found on pages 98, 100–101, and others. There is also information available through the Arlington House website, at this link.
However, there appears to be a bit of conflict in information between the Arlington House website and this site from the Library of Congress (notice the top item on the page “Robert E. Lee’s former slaves go to Liberia”). Did G.W.P. Custis free the Burke slaves or did Robert E. Lee? The book (click on the hyperlink on the LoC page) shows “Col. R. E. Lee” as the pivot man. Did Lee free the Burke slaves because of Custis’ wishes?
Well… according to another page on the Arlington House website, the details of the freeing the Arlington House slaves is specified (see “Freeing Arlington Slaves”), but not the freeing of the Burke family. Since the question of the Arlington House slaves has now dropped in our laps, let’s go ahead and see what is said about them on this page…
Inspired by his wife, Custis provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will. Slaves were to be freed after financial obligations had been met. Custis set a deadline of five years from the time of his death for the slaves’ emancipation. The slaves (believed to have numbered near 200) believed they had been promised their freedom immediately upon Custis’ death. Robert E. Lee, who managed the estate after Custis’ death, hired out some of the slaves to raise money to settle his father-in-law’s debts. This caused resentment among the slaves.
O.K., since we’re in the middle of this second mystery, let’s wrap it up…
Despite the “resentment of slaves” (refer once again to Wesley Norris’ testimony above, and it falls into place here), considering G.W.P. Custis died on October 10, 1857, and that Custis’ Will stated that the slaves were to be freed once the legacies from his estate were paid, and absolutely no later than five years after his death [just as Wesley Norris mentioned in the testimony], it would seem that Lee respected the wishes of his father-in-law, and…
In 1862, freedom came to the enslaved people of Arlington when Lee executed a deed of manumission. Some of the slaves settled in Freedman’s Village, a community for former slaves established at Arlington in 1863. The village remained in operation through the end of the 19th century.
So, we can say with certainty that Lee freed the Arlington House slaves (or at least those who remained) in 1862, but the mystery of the freeing of the Burke family still remains on the table… or is this really a no-brainer that has been messed up by some folks over the course of time? Since Custis did not die until 1857, and the Burke family left for Liberia in 1853, it would seem that Custis, not Lee, may have been responsible for actually freeing the Burke family. So then, why it is Lee recorded in that book referenced on the LoC website and not Custis?
Cenantua's Blog 
Harry Smeltzer
December 11, 2008
Considering his old man received a rebuke from Washington for proposing that deserters be decapitated and their heads mounted on pikes, I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised at Lee’s, ummm, strictness – if the account is true, of course.
Elvin Burke Birch
May 17, 2011
My mother is a direct decendent to the Burke family that settle in Liberia, West Africa
Robert Moore
May 18, 2011
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Tom Forehand, jr.
July 4, 2012
Mr. Norris “claimed” that Lee had Norris and two others whipped. Yet, even though it is well-documented that these three slaves ran, were captured, and were returned to Lee, where is the proof that Lee had them whipped? Just repeating an allegation does not make the accusation any truer today than when Mr. Norris made it in 1866.
Please present proof that the allegation of a “whippting,” made by Mr. Norris, acutally took place.
Thanks,
Tom Forehand, Jr.
Robert Moore
July 4, 2012
I know; shame on Wesley Norris, the slave who said he was whipped, for alleging that he had been whipped. Of course, he would have no idea of what really happened, and, being a slave, who are we to think that there’s any merit to a slave providing a first-person account.
Perhaps we should begin dismantling all first-person accounts, where no other accounts exist of events. Sure, that’s the ticket.
Yes, it is an allegation, and there was really no need for me to point that out. Not to mention, it’s not the only thing that this post points out.
First-person accounts are what they are, and many are subject to critical review, especially when there may be other factors behind the person making a statement. On the other hand, the same comments are also subject to criticism when a person in contemporary times finds it displeasing/unsettling to their view of the person at the other end of the allegation(s).
Tom Forehand, jr.
July 30, 2012
Robert,
Everyone has a right to tell his/her story. Even Norris — whether or not I agree with him. However, those who quote Norris’s story never mention possible motive(s) — one of which is obvious — he was angry at Lee for holding Norris longer than he thought he should have been held as a slave.
Why do those who repeat his story not also include a few sentences about who Norris was, the grudge he held against Lee, that he crossed into Northern lines during the war and revealed troop locations (Norris conveniently did not mention that point in his incomplete story), that he was also working for the federal government when he told his story for publican (a government which had just been a war with Lee’s boss the Confederacy), that Norris’s friends and relatives were also disgruntled former slaves who probably disliked Lee and might have been some of the witnesses Norris mentioned. The man and his friends had a motive to slur Lee even if he had no person whipped.
Instead, people just simply reprint his story and assume that it was true because it appeared in print.
Thanks,
Tom Forehand, Jr.
william rogers
March 7, 2013
If any totally objective individual with no ax at all to grind regarding such a man as Robert E. Lee and who had read extensively the story of his time on earth, both pro and con, in a legitimate attempt to come to an accurate assessment of who he was, and then having to deal with the accusation of the alleged beatings described by the slave Norris, it would be disconcerting to say the least. It is as if Lee had suddenly negated all that was written of him both before and after. The man that I know from those authors whom I have read and have no reason to doubt, lead me to believe that the Norris account is totally false and that his account is a fabrication written by those who were just a little too “slick” in their “use” of this man’s ‘account’ to ruin the reputation of a great american. Are all the reputable authors who spoke of Lee part of a huge conspiracy to protect Lee from resting in his proper place in history as one of our great figures? I choose to believe this lie is exactly that, a lie, driven by those, who if they had had their way would have hanged Robert E. Lee as a traitor at the earliest opportunity. I suppose a letter from Lee at the time stating that the incident was “untrue” doesn’t satisfy some of today’s revisionist historians.
One man’s opinion,
Bill Rogers
southron98
October 12, 2013
Agreed let us talk just facts. First to the will of Did you catch this tract, “Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to ““lay it on well,”” an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done”?
Forget we are speaking of Lee, let instead discuss John Doe. Keep in mind this was the 1800s, what did whites to include our President Lincoln think of blacks? That is correct they were inferior and would never be on par with whites; ““I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
But a slave owner with a few slaves seldom if ever ordered physical punishment and for a number of reasons; the slave would harder to work, control; the slave would be more likely to flee and most importantly the slave might seek revenge and if you could not afford a overseer then you would be the one to face the music.
A slave owner of means hired an overseer to handle slave matters, which would have been beneath the owner and he would never be presented during discipline. It was considered vulgar and beneath one of status. Now please don’t misunderstand this analogy as I am not saying a black was on the level of a pet, I am trying to point out what society at the time thought of physical discipline. That was something along the lines of one of your neighbors mistreating his familys’ livestock or pets, demeaning, cruel, a crude violent person. As, I said I have no doubt if slaves had fled and were caught lee or anyone would have ordered them whipped but at the same time I am just as confident that Lee would never have been present.
As to the supposed letter from a supposed illiterate field slave? Far too elegant, educated and I feel someone wrote it for him and I would bet took literary license.
As to freeing the slaves. Curtis will stated in part “And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease”. What they meant was the slaves were to work for five years with the profit from their labor to go to Curtis’s four granddaughters.
Tom Forehand, Jr.
October 25, 2013
You stated: “As, I said I have no doubt if slaves had fled and were caught lee or anyone would have ordered them whipped but at the same time I am just as confident that Lee would never have been present….”
I would like to differ with you.
I do not necessarily think that Lee WOULD ORDER (or did order that) any slave be whipped (whether Lee was present or not). There is just NO PROOF of such an order concerning a slave; there is only the ACCUSATION that he gave such an order.
There were many slaves who ran away from Arlington after Lee came there following Mr. Custis’s’ death in the late 1850s. Aside from the Norris runaway incident, please, document that Lee EVER ORDERED ANY of these OTHER RUNAWAY SLAVES to be whipped! Where are the newspaper accounts about Lee’s ordering these OTHER runaway slaves to be whipped (before the Norris incident)? Why is it that only the Norris incident hits the newspapers and does not contain his name until AFTER THE WAR?
One reason, and I think the actual one, is that Lee never ordered any slave to be whipped. That is why you find no such newspaper articles before the war. (At least I have not been able to do so. Maybe you know of some.) The only exception to this, before the war, seems to be the anonymous articles, about the Norris incident, which were no doubt exaggerated by abolitionists to pressure Lee into freeing the Arlington slaves before he wanted to do so. This is the tactic: “Cause him enough trouble, and he’ll have to let you go.”
AFTER THE WAR, did Wesley Norris continue to exaggerate this pre-war, runaway-slave incident so that his family could get something out of it? I think so and I think this is a handsome motive for continuing to slander Lee.
Unfortunately, one well-publicized writer (of this century), claimed that after the war, Norris had nothing to gain by telling his story publicly (which he did). I think, that this claim, though innocently made, is absolutely misleading historically. I believe that history shows that at least part the Norris family had a lot to gain materially by continuing to exaggerate this incident and picture Lee as a cruel slave whipper. It seems very possible that part of the Norris family conspired (possibly with others) to do this very thing after the war! Hint: follow the “finances and such….”
Tom Forehand, Jr.
Robert Moore
October 28, 2013
As many of the comments have strayed from the intent of this post, the comments thread is closed. Bottom line, Wesley Norris’ testimony is there for consideration. There is no proof that it actually happened AND there is no proof that it did not. Though I used his testimony to open the post, it alone was not the focus. I wanted to examine life well beyond the testimony, and extending to the story of the eventual freedom of the Arlington House slaves and life (for some) reaching to the story of Liberia.