One afternoon in May 1861, a young Union Army officer went rushing into the mansion that commanded the hills across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. "You must pack up all you value immediately and send it off in the morning," Lt. Orton Williams told Mary Custis Lee, wife of Robert E. Lee, who was away mobilizing Virginia's military forces as the country hurtled toward the bloodiest war in its history.
Mary Lee dreaded the thought of abandoning Arlington, the 1,100-acre estate she had inherited 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, as the new nation's capital took form across the river, Custis started building Arlington, his showplace mansion. Probably modeled after the Temple of Hephaestus in Athens, the columned house floated among the Virginia hills as if it had been there forever, peering down upon the half-finished capital at its feet. 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 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.
On April 12, 1861, Confederate troops had fired on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, prompting a number of states from the Deep South to join in rebellion. President Abraham Lincoln, newly installed in the White House, called up 75,000 troops to defend the capital. As the spring unfolded, the forces drifted into Washington, set up camp in the unfinished Capitol building, patrolled the city's thoroughfares and scrutinized the Virginia hills for signs of trouble. Although officially uncommitted to the Confederacy, Virginia was expected to join the revolt. When that happened, Union troops would have to take control of Arlington, where the heights offered a perfect platform for artillery—key to the defense or subjugation of the capital. Once the war began, Arlington was easily won. But then it became the prize in a legal and bureaucratic battle that would continue long after the guns fell silent at Appomattox in 1865. The federal government was still wrestling the Lee family for control of the property in 1882, by which time it had been transformed into Arlington National Cemetery, the nation's most hallowed ground.
Orton Williams was not only Mary Lee's cousin and a suitor of her daughter Agnes but also private secretary to General in Chief Winfield Scott of the Union Army.
Working in Scott's office, he had no doubt heard about the Union Army's plans for seizing Arlington, which accounts for his sudden appearance there. That May night, Mrs. Lee supervised some frantic packing by a few of the family's 196 slaves, who boxed the family silver for transfer to Richmond, crated George Washington's and G.W.P. Custis' papers and secured General Lee's files. After organizing her escape, Mary Lee tried to get some sleep, only to be awakened just after dawn by Williams: the Army's advance upon Arlington had been delayed, he said, though it was inevitable. She lingered for several days, sitting for hours in her favorite roost, an arbor south of the mansion. "I never saw the country more beautiful, perfectly radiant," she wrote to her husband. "The yellow jasmine in full bloom and perfuming the air; but a death like stillness prevails everywhere."
The general, stranded at a desk in Richmond, feared for his wife's safety. "I am very anxious about you," he had written her on April 26. "You have to move, & make arrangements to go to some point of safety....War is inevitable & there is no telling when it will burst around you."
By this time, he almost certainly knew that Arlington would be lost. A newly commissioned brigadier general in the Confederate Army, he had made no provision to hold it by force, choosing instead to concentrate his troops some 20 miles southwest, near a railroad junction at Manassas, Virginia. Meanwhile, Northern newspapers such as the New York Daily Tribune trained their big guns on him—labeling him a traitor for resigning his colonel's commission in the Union Army to go south "in the footsteps of Benedict Arnold!"
The rhetoric grew only more heated with the weather. Former Army comrades who had admired Lee turned against him. None was more outspoken than Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, a fellow West Point graduate who had served amicably under Lee in the engineer corps but now considered him an insurgent. "No man who ever took the oath to support the Constitution as an officer of our army or navy...should escape without loss of all his goods & civil rights & expatriation," Meigs wrote to his father. He urged that Lee as well as Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, who also had resigned from the federal Army to join the enemy, and Confederate President Jefferson Davis "should be put formally out of the way if possible by sentence of death [and] executed if caught."
When Johnston resigned, Meigs had taken his job as quartermaster general, which required him to equip, feed and transport a rapidly growing Union Army—a task for which Meigs proved supremely suited. Vain, energetic, vindictive and exceptionally capable, he would back up his belligerent talk in the months and years ahead. His own mother conceded that the youthful Meigs had been "high tempered, unyielding, tyrannical...and very persevering in pursuit of anything he wants." Fighting for control of Arlington, he would become one of Lee's most implacable foes.
By mid-May, even Mary Lee had to concede that she could not avoid the impending conflict. "I would have greatly preferred remaining at home & having my children around me," she wrote to one of her daughters, "but as it would greatly increase your Father's anxiety I shall go." She made an eerily accurate prediction: "I fear that this will be the scene of conflict & my beautiful home endeared by a thousand associations may become a field of carnage."
She took a final turn in the garden, entrusted the keys to Selina Gray, a slave, and followed her husband's path down the estate's long, winding driveway. Like many others on both sides, she believed that the war would pass quickly.
On May 23, 1861, the voters of Virginia approved an ordinance of secession by a ratio of more than six to one. Within hours, columns of Union forces streamed through Washington and made for the Potomac. At precisely 2 a.m. on May 24, some 14,000 troops began crossing the river into Virginia. They advanced in the moonlight on steamers, on foot and on horseback, in swarms so thick that James Parks, a Lee family slave watching from Arlington, thought they looked "like bees a-coming."
The undefended estate changed hands without a whimper. When the sun rose that morning, the place was teeming with men in blue. They established a tidy village of tents, stoked fires for breakfast and scuttled over the mansion's broad portico with telegrams from the War Office. The surrounding hills were soon lumpy with breastworks, and massive oaks were felled to clear a line of fire for artillery. "All that the best military skill could suggest to strengthen the position has been done," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper reported, "and the whole line of defenses on Arlington Heights may be said to be completed and capable of being held against any attacking force."
The attack never materialized, but the war's impact was seen, felt and heard at Arlington in a thousand ways. Union forces denuded the estate's forest and absconded with souvenirs from the mansion. They built cabins and set up a cavalry remount station by the river. The Army also took charge of the newly freed slaves who flocked into Washington after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. When the government was unable to accommodate the former slaves in the capital, where thousands fell sick and died, one of Meigs' officers proposed that they be settled at Arlington, "on the lands recently abandoned by rebel leaders." A sprawling Freedmen's Village of 1,500 sprang to life on the estate, complete with new frame houses, schools, churches and farmlands on which former slaves grew food for the Union's war effort. "One sees more than poetic justice in the fact that its rich lands, so long the domain of the great general of the rebellion, now afford labor and support to hundreds of enfranchised slaves," a visiting journalist would report in the Washington Independent in January 1867.



Comments
Beautiful as Arlington House is, I have always considered the creation of the national cemetary in the front yard of the CSA's most important general to be perfect turn-about. What else was the Civil War but the quintessential definition of treason against the duly constituted government of the United States? Traitors certainly don't deserve to gain back their spacious, slave-built mansions on the edge of the national capitol. Arlington is a FAR more fitting national shrine now for those who have given their ultimate to PRESERVE the Union than it would have been as another stop on the Lost Cause pilgrimage
Posted by Larry Slater on October 19,2009 | 08:49 PM
The way I heard it, Lincoln first offered the Army of the Potomoc to Lee, the nation's best general, first. Lee, despite what he may have personally wanted, chose to honor his state, and follow it into the C.S.A.
The first grave of the new cemetery was spitefully started right at the base of the mansion's front steps, so that Lee, who had spurned/rejected the offer to lead the Union army, would never be able to return home.
It is the best site to barrage the capital. Having a graveyard on the heights is kinda strange, though, since everything drains downhill....
Posted by Sule Greg C. Wilson on October 22,2009 | 03:27 PM
The entire article included in this month's magazine was wonderful. I thought it fairly balanced. I had long heard the story of the confiscation of the mansion, but I was happy to hear that the government eventually acknowledged its error and paid for the property.
Posted by Nancy Uhran on October 26,2009 | 10:08 AM
I was told by the son of a former WWII GI and an Australian war bride that no Confederate soldiers could be interred in Arlington National Cemetery or any other national cemetery.
This article doesn't expressly mention this but it seems implied that Robert E Lee could not have been interred in Arlington.
I have visited Arlington National Cemetery on three occasions since 2003 - most recently after participating in the dedication at Fort Meyer on June 11, 2009, of the Bakers Creek Memorial honouring WWII GIs who perished in an aircraft crash near where I live in Australia.
It is always up-lifting to feel the reverence afforded to those who gave their lives for our freedom. To learn the origin of Arlington National Cemetery has added more meaning to my solemn visits.
As I have walked through ANC to pay respects to two of those soldiers, and passed by headstones from the Civil War years, I have wondered if what I was told about Confederate soldiers has any merit.
Posted by Colin E (Col) Benson on October 27,2009 | 12:24 PM
For Col. Benson:
Hundreds of Confederate soldiers were, in fact, buried at Arlington during the Civil War simply because they died in Washington area hospitals and there was no where else to dispose of them them. After the war, more than 200 Rebels were disinterred and reburied in Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina. With the beginning of the 20th century, as the scars of the war began to heal and national reunion became important, a Confederate section was established at Arlington, where more than 400 Rebel graves scattered throughout the Washington area were concentrated--a gesture of national healing.
Robert E. Lee never returned to Arlington after leaving in 1861, although he may have glimpsed it from a rail car once or twice. Sectional feelings were too raw, and the animosity toward him too fierce, for him to expect burial at Arlington. He never mentioned the place in his public statements, but worked quietly behind the scenes to have Arlington returned to the family.
Posted by Robert M. Poole on October 28,2009 | 09:42 PM
Lee was offered command of Union Forces by General Winfield Scott, a very old and distinguished man and long time commander of Col. Lee dating back to the Mexican war. Declining this offer and his resignation were (in Lee's own words" the hardest thing he ever had to do. In his mind his oath to the US. Govt was superseded by his prior obligation and Duty to his home state of Virginia. In fact this decision and this duty as he saw it was in microcosm one of the central issues of the war; States Rights versus the Nation's Rights. Do the rights and demands of the nation supersede those of the state? In lee's words he could not ever see himself making war on his home. It was a hard choice but he did his duty as he saw it. I take issue with any characterization of him as a traitor and prosecuting him and the other commanders for Treason would have been a grave mistake and would have seriously weakened what as a result became The UNITED States Of America (before they were not so united).
An argument can be made that on balance Lee was in fact a Great Patriot of the USA because the issues that led to war were very deep, long festering and some of them were in fact clear back to the founding. Jefferson was aware of some of these in his writing of the Declaration (things that were stricken from the first draft for example). These issues required a war to resolve, this war was long coming and a successful resolution required the effort and that the South put up a good fight and be soundly defeated on the field of battle. Lee was the right man to put up that fight and in so doing the nation is better for it.
Nevertheless, their are/were opposing views. In balance what became of Arlington was righteous and a suitable memorial
Posted by Thomas Satterfield on November 4,2009 | 04:31 PM
What I like about the cemetery is it's egalitarianism...you don't have to be a Kennedy to be buried there! Or a Taft, Mammett, Meigs or Murphy.
My father is buried in Arlington National Cemetery as he was a professional solider and veteran of WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. It was always a place I visited regularly even before he was buried there as it is very beautiful and serene.
Every one should attend a Changing of the Guard ceremony which again re-enforces the honor due all those buried there.
Posted by Connie Hoar on November 5,2009 | 05:57 PM
Myself and my family have been to Arlington a lot of times and when we go to the tomb of the unknown soldiers I look across to all the headstones to see the men and women that payed the ultimate price. When I'm in the area I always make it a point to go their. I servied in the Phillipines and England. My wife and I were glad to hear that our ashes can be buried their.
Posted by Gene R. Putanko on November 5,2009 | 06:04 PM
General Lee was a man of sterling character. He did what his conscience told him was correct. After all, the confederate states had liberty to leave the USA, as the Constitution makes no demand that all states must remain in the Union.
The United States blockaded Charleston harbor, which is an act of war. The Confederate States had a duty to defend themselves.
Posted by Joe Miller, Sr. on November 6,2009 | 08:48 PM
The British had an interesting take on the War Between the States. They wondered what was the difference between the colonies seceding from England and the South seceding from the Union.
Posted by David Mullins on November 6,2009 | 09:39 PM
I found this a wonderful and compelling article about our national cemetary. I wish I would have known these fine points as I walked those hallowed grounds on my past visit to my nation's capital. I am quite sure that in the intervening years between the occupation and the court decisions favoring Custis Lee, there was much anxiety and work behind the scenes... oh, to be a fly on the wall... That is the way history works... Like a soup stock, it simmers over time, concentrating the issues and answers that only good historical research can provide. Thank you for a great piece, it will be in my pocket when I visit Arlington again.
Posted by Steve on November 7,2009 | 06:49 AM
The War of Northern Aggression demonstrates the very first attempts by the federal goverment to destroy the 10th Ammendment, providing for States Rights. In the aftermath of the conflict, ruthless, selfish, greedy northern bureaucrats decided to exact the full pound of flesh from Southern Patriots in a systematic rape of the states who's right it was to leave the union they had joined. Instead of healing the wounds of conflict, the forces of rampent power forshook mercy, and decided rather to grind the vanquished beneath its emperial bootheel. Shame to those who took a family's home. At least the hallowed and beloved ground is now used to house the remains of Americas finest who have given the full measure of devotion, to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies.
Posted by Peter McMillan on November 7,2009 | 11:56 AM
To call Lee a True patriot is certainly a stretch. Did he love is country?..yes. Did he love his home state of Virginia?..absolutely. The problem was he failed to see both were the same. In fact the Foundation of the United States was recognizing a central Federal power, yet one that was not restrictive in controling states rights. Slavery was and will remain the cornerstone of the conflict, despite the throngs of those who say it was only a states right issue. When Lincoln restricted Slave expansion to the western territories, he felt "Slavery would suffer a natural death". However Southern states saw this as a threat to their economy and way of life.
Lees obligations were misplaced, although he remains a man of exceptional character. If Lees decision to choose Virginia over country was patriotism, than what was Lincoln decision to commit to war? Lincoln sought to perserve that which was founded four-score and seven years prior, nothing more. Just as he said that "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
Lee could have, based on what he saw,(and he fundamentally recognized that slavery must be abolished), choose to fight on the side of the right cause, rather than fight for misplaced alegiences to states rights, when in reality the issue of state rights was the that of slavery.
Had Lee been the northern General the war would have been over quickly. He was undoubtedly the overall best tactical general of the war. For this I do hold him accountable.
Posted by Doug Rufino on November 7,2009 | 12:07 PM
This magazine is extraordinary. It is the most information-rich media outlet that covers such a broad range of topics. I love how the article winds through layers of facts, dates, deaths, and battles in a captivating manner. Article's like this are what today's youth need to experience. Instead of lists of dry statistics and details, schooling should try to mimic this style of bringing history to life. Overall, truly a compelling article about our national cemetery.
Posted by Will May on November 11,2009 | 07:03 PM
I have been to Arlington National Cemetery and was amazed at what I saw. I witnessed the changing of the guards which was incredible to see. While I took the tour the guide did give details but not to the extent of this article. To have read this article before would have made my experience better then what it already was.
Posted by andrew Adams on November 11,2009 | 08:28 PM
It was very interesting to me to hear about how the Federal government just took over the mansion and did not care at all how the owners felt about it. Smithsonian does a wonderful job bringing this story to life. I had previously heard stories about how the cemetery came to be but this story gives all the good details. I have also visited the cemetery and I wish that my tour guide would have given us all the juicy details, it would have made it much better.
Posted by Jessica Thompson on November 12,2009 | 09:53 AM
President Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops was not merely to defend the capital as the article suggests, rather, per correspondence from the War Department's Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, and Secretary of State, William Seward, it was for "suppressing insurrections and said combinations" (i.e. the use of force against the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas). Of those states that troops were being requested from was none other than Lee’s home state of Virginia, which was considering secession at the same time Lincoln offered command of the Union Army to Lee. It is not hard to imagine the difficulty Lee was faced with in deciding whether to side with both the Union and the army he loved or to choose Virginia, which held within its borders his home, friends, and family, and was quickly becoming the target of certain suppression itself. Lee’s decision left little doubt that which ever side he chose against would obviously label him as a traitor, whereas the other side would equally embrace him as a patriot. Regardless of the side he served on, his actions before, during, and after this conflict will forever include him as one of the greatest Americans that has ever lived.
Thankfully at war’s end Meigs was not in charge, otherwise this country may have never healed considering his personal sentiments towards Confederate soldiers, officers, their families, and citizens of those states. It is interesting to ask why Meigs did not initially bury his son at Arlington but chose to bury him there at a later time. Obviously Meigs’ original plan for the burials was to make Arlington uninhabitable for the Lees but apparently his son’s burial warranted a more preferred location at that time. Regardless, we have Meigs to thank for his forsight and for one of our nation’s most cherished landmarks. Every time I visit there is a moving experience that will never be forgotten.
Posted by William D. Lewis on November 12,2009 | 11:05 AM
The History of Arlington Cemetary is interesting to me. As a student I had no idea of the conflict that insued over this estate. I love the detail and depth of this story. I really feel as if I have a story to tell others now.
Posted by Jacob Voncannon on November 12,2009 | 11:06 AM
I found this article interesting and amazing. Having many family member that have served this country through the military, it is touching to see history like this. I had the oppurtunity to visit Arlington National Cemetery a few years ago. I was compelled by the history and sacrifice that was put in during the Civil War, and other American wars. It was a great article.
Posted by Andrew Sowder on November 12,2009 | 11:55 AM
My wife died last year, and is buried at the foot of the hill in sight of the Lee-Custis mansion. It is a beautiful sight, and I am comforted that when I die that I, too, will be laid to rest and join her for eternity in such a wonderful place.
Posted by Martin Flamm on November 12,2009 | 12:49 PM
During a recent visit to Arlington I purchased a book there that told of the history of Arlington. Very interesting. When I visited Arlington as a child, about 45 years ago, Arlington House was then called the Custis-Lee Mansion.
The individuals buried there include Lee Marvin, Joe Lewis, D. Hamett, and of course Presidents Taft, and now the 3 Kennedy brothers John, Teddy, and Robert.
Posted by Don Hayes on November 12,2009 | 12:59 PM
Excellent write-up. I was familiar with the surface-level history of the formation of Arlington National Cemetery, but the level of detail provided by the article is fascinating. The depth of the research required to incorporate the views and comments of so many relevant parties to this historical event is impressive. I look forward to reading more of your work.
Posted by David Staab on November 13,2009 | 09:59 AM
Why no photo of the magnificent mansion that figures prominently in site descriptions? We're asked to read Smithsonian Magazine online to save trees, but you are amazingly parsimonious with photos. When NPR had coverage of this story, I had to settle for audio-only. But you--a magazine with fine photo illustrations--don't measure up in the visual department online. (I will, of course, be red-faced if I get into the latest hard copy and find this story with wonderful photos of the mansion....)
Posted by Connie Finster on November 15,2009 | 01:35 PM
In life and especially in war, 'Do not come in second'.
Posted by Bernard Price on November 17,2009 | 09:26 AM
One of the more profound, if unintended effects of this article is to illustrate some of the problematic differences between the North and the South in the embodiment of Montgomery Meigs and Robert E. Lee. A taciturn, bitter, and ultimately cold man the only battle Meigs ever waged was against the non combatants of Lee's family, with a spiteful and inflexible nature that represents much of what Southerners wished to separate themselves from in their Northern cousins. It is the most poetic irony that Arlington has become both a symbol and place of reverence and tied forever with it, the name of Robert E. Lee. Meigs, but a footnote in the ashbin of history.
Posted by James Lechner on November 17,2009 | 10:15 AM
Without refighting the War, there is one thing as a Southerner I wish Custis Lee had done at the point of sale. I wish he had made the stipulation that Meigs` name be permanently removed from the gate to Arlington. What Meigs did was nothing more than vengeance and a show of hatred and animosity toward Robert E. Lee. Even after the War, when most soldiers from both sides were learning how to put the past behind them, Meigs continued unabated against Lee. The article bears this out. The National Cemetery was almost an afterthought to how much destruction Meigs could cause on the Lee property. I am glad someone is finally bringing all of this to light, at least how the Lee property was stolen from them in the first place. I only wish the US Government would also acknowledge what Meigs` true motives were instead of honoring him for the layout of Arlington.
Posted by John E. Truitt on November 17,2009 | 11:53 PM
It's funny how so many consider the confederates as treasonous. Treason is the act of subverting the government of the United States. The Confederacy wanted to pull out of the U.S., not overthrow it. It was the Union that demanded, at the point of a gun, that all states remain in the supposed voluntary union. Certainly there are those who will counter that the south attacked a federal installation first. Even then the politicians were well versed at deceit and had promised to vacate Sumter only to reverse their position and resupply and fortify it.
Posted by Rob Cressie on December 14,2009 | 09:52 PM
One hundred forty six years have passed since the start of the Civil War. The Union was held together by force and it created hard feelings that lasted in some till they died. However I take inspiration from reading of the many Battlefield reunions held by the actual combatants.
On a recent trip to Gettysburg PA I was again reminded of the scope of our Civil war when looking at State memorials to the dead of both sides. So many came and died but many of those who survived returned and embraced each other as brothers.
Posted by Thomas Collins on December 17,2009 | 05:51 PM
For Robert Poole:
I just finished reading "On Hallowed Ground" and it is the most beautiful and touching book I've read in years. What beautiful stories about our heroes, especially the younger ones who went into battle not expecting to be heroes, but only wanting to defend their country and return home safely.
The story about the first Unknown was especially touching!
This book should be required reading for all history classes in high school and up! A must read for anyone in the military or just anyone who loves their country.
Thank you, Mr. Poole, for this fascinating glimpse into our nation's history and some of its heroes. I would love to see a second book by you, as your notes said you left out much. Perhaps a follow-up, about those heroes whose story remains untold.
Sincerely, Ellie Baublitz
Posted by ellie baublitz on February 5,2010 | 07:16 PM