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 4 of 4)
Hayes hardly had time to unpack his bags before Custis Lee revived the campaign for Arlington—this time in court.
Asserting ownership of the property, Lee asked the Circuit Court of Alexandria, Virginia, to evict all trespassers occupying it as a result of the 1864 auction. As soon as U.S. Attorney General Charles Devens heard about the suit, he asked that the case be shifted to federal court, where he felt the government would get a fairer hearing. In July 1877, the matter landed in the lap of Judge Robert W. Hughes of the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Hughes, a lawyer and newspaper editor, had been appointed to the bench by President Grant.
After months of legal maneuvering and arguments, Hughes ordered a jury trial. Custis Lee's team of lawyers was headed by Francis L. Smith, the Alexandrian who had strategized with Lee's father years before. Their argument turned upon the legality of the 1864 tax sale. After a six-day trial, a jury found for Lee on January 30, 1879: by requiring the "insurrectionary tax" to be paid in person, the government had deprived Custis Lee of his property without due process of law. "The impolicy of such a provision of law is as obvious to me as its unconstitutionality," Hughes wrote. "Its evil would be liable to fall not only upon disloyal but upon the most loyal citizens. A severe illness lasting only ninety or a hundred days would subject the owner of land to the irreclaimable loss of its possession."
The government appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court—which ruled for Lee again. On December 4, 1882, Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, a Kentucky native appointed by President Lincoln, wrote for the 5 to 4 majority, holding that the 1864 tax sale had been unconstitutional and was therefore invalid.
The Lees had retaken Arlington.
This left few options for the federal government, which was now technically trespassing on private property. It could abandon an Army fort on the grounds, roust the residents of Freedmen's Village, disinter almost 20,000 graves and vacate the property. Or it could buy the estate from Custis Lee—if he was willing to sell it.
He was. Both sides agreed on a price of $150,000, the property's fair market value. Congress quickly appropriated the funds. Lee signed papers conveying the title on March 31, 1883, which placed federal ownership of Arlington beyond dispute. The man who formally accepted title to the property for the government was none other than Robert Todd Lincoln, secretary of war and son of the president so often bedeviled by Custis Lee's father. If the sons of such adversaries could bury past arguments, perhaps there was hope for national reunion.
The same year the Supreme Court ruled in Custis Lee's favor, Montgomery Meigs, having reached the mandatory retirement age of 65, was forced out of the quartermaster's job. He would remain active in Washington for another decade, designing and overseeing construction of the Pension Building, serving as a Regent of the Smithsonian Institution and as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He was a frequent visitor to Arlington, where he had buried his wife, Louisa, in 1879. The burials of other family members followed—among them his father, numerous in-laws and his son, John, reburied from Georgetown. Their graves, anchoring Row 1, Section 1 of the cemetery, far outnumbered those of any Lee relatives on the estate.
Meigs joined his family in January 1892, age 75, after a brief bout with the flu. He made the final journey from Washington in fine style, accompanied by an Army band, flying flags and an honor guard of 150 soldiers decked out in their best uniforms. His flag-draped caisson rattled across the river, up the long slope to Arlington and across the meadow of tombstones he had so assiduously cultivated. With muffled drums marking time and guidons snapping in the chill wind, the funeral procession passed Mary Lee's garden and came to a halt on Meigs Drive. The rifles barked their last salute, "Taps" sounded over the tawny hills and soldiers eased Montgomery C. Meigs into the ground at the heart of the cemetery he created.
Adapted from On Hallowed Ground, by Robert M. Poole. © 2009 Robert M. Poole. Published by Walker & Company. Reproduced with permission.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4
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