How Arlington National Cemetery Came to Be
The fight over Robert E. Lee's beloved home—seized by the U.S. government during the Civil War—went on for decades
- By Robert M. Poole
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2009, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 4)
Lee avoided the spectacle of a trial. Treason charges were filed against him but quietly dropped, almost certainly because his former adversary, Grant, interceded on Lee's behalf with President Andrew Johnson. Settling in Lexington, Virginia, Lee took over as president of Washington College, a struggling little school deep in the Shenandoah Valley, and encouraged old comrades to work for peace.
The Lees would spend the postwar years trying to retake possession of their estate.
Mary Lee felt a growing outrage. "I cannot write with composure on my own cherished Arlington," she wrote to a friend. The graves "are planted up to the very door without any regard to common decency....If justice & law are not utterly extinct in the U.S., I will have it back."
Her husband, however, kept his ambitions for Arlington hidden from all but a few advisers and family members. "I have not taken any steps in the matter," he cautioned a Washington lawyer who offered to take on the Arlington case for free, "under the belief that at present I could accomplish no good." But he encouraged the lawyer to research the case quietly and to coordinate his efforts with Francis L. Smith, Lee's trusted legal adviser in Alexandria. To his elder brother Smith Lee, who had served as an officer in the Confederate navy, the general admitted that he wanted to "regain the possession of A." and particularly "to terminate the burial of the dead which can only be done by its restoration to the family."
To gauge whether this was possible, Smith Lee made a clandestine visit to the old estate in the autumn or winter of 1865. He concluded that the place could be made habitable again if a wall was built to screen the graves from the mansion. But Smith Lee made the mistake of sharing his views with the cemetery superintendent, who dutifully shared them with Meigs, along with the mystery visitor's identity.
While the Lees worked to reclaim Arlington, Meigs urged Edwin Stanton in early 1866 to make sure the government had sound title to the cemetery. The land had been consecrated by the remains buried there and could not be given back to the Lees, he insisted, striking a refrain he would repeat in the years ahead. Yet the Lees clung to the hope that Arlington might be returned to the family—if not to Mrs. Lee, then to one of their sons. The former general was quietly pursuing this objective when he met with his lawyers for the last time, in July 1870. "The prospect does not look promising," he reported to Mary. The question of Arlington's ownership was still unresolved when Lee died, at 63, in Lexington, on October 12, 1870.
His widow continued to obsess over the loss of her home. Within weeks, Mary Lee petitioned Congress to examine the federal claim to Arlington and estimate the costs of removing the bodies buried there.
Her proposal was bitterly protested on the Senate floor and defeated, 54 to 4. It was a disaster for Mary Lee, but the debate helped to elevate Arlington's status: no longer a potter's field created in the desperation of wartime, the cemetery was becoming something far grander, a place senators referred to as hallowed ground, a shrine for "the sacred dead," "the patriot dead," "the heroic dead" and "patriotic graves."
The plantation the Lees had known became less recognizable each year. Many original residents of Freedmen's Village stayed on after the war, raising children and grandchildren in the little houses the Army had built for them. Meigs stayed on, too, serving as quartermaster general for two decades, shaping the look of the cemetery. He raised a Greek-style Temple of Fame to George Washington and to distinguished Civil War generals by Mrs. Lee's garden, established a wisteria-draped amphitheater large enough to accommodate 5,000 people for ceremonies and even prescribed new plantings for the garden's borders (elephant ears and canna). He watched the officers' section of the cemetery sprout enormous tombstones typical of the Gilded Age. And he erected a massive red arch at the cemetery's entrance to honor Gen. George B. McClellan, one of the Civil War's most popular—and least effective—officers. As was his habit, Meigs included his name on the arch; it was chiseled into the entrance column and lettered in gold. Today, it is one of the first things a visitor sees when approaching the cemetery from the east.
While Meigs built, Mary Lee managed a farewell visit to Arlington in June 1873. Accompanied by a friend, she rode in a carriage for three hours through a landscape utterly transformed, filled with old memories and new graves. "My visit produced one good effect," she wrote later that week. "The change is so entire that I have not the yearning to go back there & shall be more content to resign all my right in it." She died in Lexington five months later, at age 65.
With her death, her hopes for Arlington lived on in her eldest son, George Washington Custis Lee, known as Custis. For him, regaining the estate was a matter of both filial obligation and self-interest: he had no inheritance beyond the Arlington property.
On April 6, 1874, within months of his mother's funeral, Custis went to Congress with a new petition. Avoiding her inflammatory suggestion that Arlington be cleared of graves, he asked instead for an admission that the property had been taken unlawfully and requested compensation for it. He argued that his mother's good-faith attempt to pay the "insurrectionary tax" of $92.07 on Arlington was the same as if she had paid it.
While the petition languished for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Meigs worried that it would "interfere with the United States' tenure of this National Cemetery—a result to be avoided by all just means." He need not have worried. A few weeks later, the petition died quietly in committee, attended by no debate and scant notice.
Custis Lee might have given up then and there if not for signs that the hard feelings between North and South were beginning to soften. Rutherford B. Hayes, a Union veteran elected on the promise of healing scars from the Civil War, was sworn in as president in March 1877.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (39)
+ View All Comments
This was way to long for me to read. keep it short cuz i dont have all day! hahaha
Posted by tori Morales on February 20,2013 | 10:17 PM
i want to be buried there
Posted by on November 2,2012 | 12:12 PM
Maybe I missed something but the name Arlington where did it come from, write me and I will tell you tonyscc@yahoo.com
Posted by anthony sacco on May 27,2012 | 04:29 PM
Mrs Lee didnot Inherit Arlington she got only a Life Estate Custis Lee inherited Arlinhton.The taxes were paid by Lee's sister the estate was stolen and the one hurt most was Mrs Lee as was true in othe parts of the south where the men were dead the houses and land burned the women left to morn.
Posted by James Revell on May 17,2012 | 03:56 PM
I just wished that my ancestors had been able to do this to the White House and we would see all you people would have felt about it. This is a disgrace to the whole country that the Yankees thieves stole this property and were so and still are proud of what they did. AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE/
Posted by Hyder Corder on April 13,2012 | 09:39 PM
It is amusing to see the number of people who still see the Union as the agressor in the Civil War when it is the Confederates who undisputably fired the first shot on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina in April of 1861. Prior to that time here was no mobilization of Union forces whatsoever. Many people in the North we more than happy to see the southernerners, who held a lopsided dominance over the Excutive and Legistlative branches of government for decades, simply go away. But something about firing on U.S. troops serving under the U.S. flag upset the northerners (kind of like the way later Americans reacted to the Japanese attacked on Pearl Harbor, the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, and the attack on the USS Cole). Firing on Fort Sumter may not have been treason since the South Carolinians at that point considered themselves seperate from the U.S., but it certainly was a act of anger and rudeness. Had the Carolinians waited, had they been patient enough to tight until there was an attack from the Federal government (which could have been years in the making before any hostilities occured) their reason for going to war would have been more clearly justified and they probably would have gotten official an recognition of soverienty from England, France and Spain. The entire war might have ended years earlier. Alas, no. Cooler heads did not prevail and they obviously still don't.
Posted by on March 31,2012 | 12:50 PM
Overall, this is an excellent article! The writer is gifted. So, on December 4, 1882, 20+ years after the illegal unionist occupation and confiscation of the 1,100+ acres of private estate land, the Unionist Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 that the Unionists had violated the US Constitution. This article was grand, except its conclusions that the tyrant's son Robert Todd Lincoln, acting on behalf of the US Department of War, and the Noble son of General Robert E. Lee, George Washington Custis "Custis" Lee, had somehow patched things up as "burying the hatchet" when Mr. Lee agreed to "sell" his family's beloved land to the northern government that had dumped its dead corpses into the gardens of Mrs. Mary Custis Lee. The Union loves to even use its own dead corpses to further its cause for more power and greed, and then whitewash their actions with lies and patriotic rhetoric. This continues as more US troops come home in a pine box as the Empire insists we must fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, etc. for "freedom." I do not accept this "whitewash" conclusion. In fact, I quote from the great General himself: "If I had foreseen the use [the Yankees] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." - Robert E. Lee --DEO VINDICE!!!
Posted by Nicholas VanZant Ferrante on August 14,2011 | 02:51 PM
Lee-Custis Mansion is beautiful and I have seen it many times.
Only recently, did I ever see it called Arlington House. Yes, I know it overlooks Arlington National Cemetery!!
When did people begin calling it Arlington House?
Posted by Jewel G. Harrell on October 26,2010 | 04:52 PM
Thank you for this article,I was unaware of the shameful origins of Arlington,all because of one spiteful individual,Meigs. Perhaps this was the man's only fault,but what he caused to happen was nothing short of thievery. Had I been Custis Lee I believe I would have demanded the federal government restore Arlington to pre-Civil War conditions.
Posted by Cathy Hackett on April 27,2010 | 12:30 PM
For Ellie Baublitz:
I am so sorry to be late responding to your comment of Feb. 5! Many thanks for your kind comments on my book about Arlington, On Hallowed Ground. As you know, there are far too many individuals, living and dead, at Arlington to get them all into one book--nor would I try. My thought was to describe the evolution of this unique place, from plantation days to the present. I'm not planning a sequel, but there is an audio edition to be published this summer, with me doing the narration.
Thanks again and all the best to you.
Robert M. Poole
Smithsonian Contributing Editor
Author, On Hallowed Ground: The Story of Arlington National Cemetery
Posted by Robert M. Poole on April 5,2010 | 10:22 AM
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
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
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
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
+ View All Comments