*This thread will be a work in progress as I try to run down all of the accusations made by Mark Douglas. I will be using Elizabeth Pryor’s book as one of my sources. I will also note the date I edit this thread and the source from which I gather information. Below is the Wesley Norris letter in which Douglas "embellished" a bit to make his point.
Again all sources I post may or may not be the same sources as what Douglas used. I have invited Douglas to come to this forum and post his sources.
GP *******************************************************************
"Lee paid six times the normal bounty to get one young girl back –14 or 15 years old. When bounty hunters brought her to him, he immediately taunted her, had her stripped to her waste, and tortured. The first overseer refused to torture the girl, Lee didn’t even miss a beat. He hired someone else to do the torture — and Lee stood by screaming at the girl while she was tortured. Mark Douglas" *******************************************************************
This is what I have found, The Wesley Norris letter. This account is supposed to be true according to Pryor and Douglas. "Reading The Man" Pryor page 261----- "Except for one thing all facts are verfiable."
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 [censored] 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."Reading The Man , Pryor, pages 260-261
Now according to the testimony of Norris they ran away in 1859 which was well before they were supposed to be freed. .He and his cousin were brought back and given a whipping. She was given 20 lashes while Norris was given 50. Nowhere in Norris letter does it say the girl was tortured or that Lee was screaming . In fact this is the exact passage from the letter ---
“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”
I say so? Is this the worst you can find on Lee? How many other slave owners whipped their slaves? Lee was well within his rights to administer punishment. Didn’t the Northern slave traders subject their captives to much worse treatment? If this happened to every slave, would it justify the actions of Sherman, Lincoln and Grant? It appears this posting by Douglas is nothing more than someone looking for minute details to tarnish the reputation of Robert E. Lee, who after all was just a man. However truth is truth and if this is factual, post the facts, no need to embellish the story with your words and and different presentation of fact.
Washed with brine??? Lee was then taking care of their wounds. Brine or salt water has long been known to be both a pain reliever and a healer.
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4898741_treating-wounds-salt-water.html GP -- (12-29-10)
Lee was not Jesus, neither did he present himself as such. He would have been enraged by what he considered (rightly so) a breach of trust between the slaves and their late master who had declared that they were to be freed after five years!. Most probably, had they belonged to Lee personally, he would have been more forgiving, but they had caused him to fail in his own duty (and duty was something that Lee took very seriously!) and therefore were victims of his wrath for not only their betrayal of his dead father-in-law, but because they had caused him to fall short of his duty.
We must not see Robert E. Lee as some sort of Mahatma Ghandi type. He was a man of his time and he was quite capable of anger as has been testified. His opinion of and behavior towards poor George Pickett certainly reveals that he was a strict taskmaster. How many Confederate deserters were hanged or shot in Lee's army? He certainly didn't step in and save them all however sad he might have been regarding his duty to keep the discipline in the army. Had he allowed these slaves to simply run away or, if captured to be let off, then his command of the situation would have been considerably lessened and it might well have been that the rest would have done the same thing.
Remember, too, Lee needed the slaves to recoup the losses suffered by his father-in-law and to clear up the plantation's debts. Frankly, he made the work to help clear up the debts so that they could be freed. Had he allowed the plantation to go into default, those same slaves would have been sold to recoup the debt and they would never have been freed, at least according to the existing situation. From what I see of Lee's behavior here, the anger is justifiable as he would have seen this behavior as a betrayal of not only their former master and himself, but of their fellow slaves who might have had to be sold off if the debts were not cleared up.
The situation might sound awful to us, but it was certainly not unusual those days - and not just in the South.
What you say is true and verified by several websites I have visited. I gotta say I love it when we can take apart a post piece by piece and prove it wrong. Sorta puts all the Yankee arguments in the proper perspective wouldn't you say???
Do you have anything on the "paid six times" for the return of the slave girl statement???
I know nothing of this situation but what you have printed. Of course, there is nothing to prove that the testimony of the slave is true in whole or even in part. He wouldn't be the first slave to exaggerate how badly he was treated! Then I cannot imagine the overseer unwilling to give a whipping to runaways unless it was of such severity as to be fatal. We are altogether too ready to accept Norris' testimony at face value and given that lies have been told before, why not now?
I am just going with the idea it is true. In my opinion by doing that and printing the letter we can clearly see how the story has been "enhanced" somewhat.
GP
PS--- Nearly forgot. Emailed Bill today I think he has info to post however the signup feature is giving him problems.
