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)
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
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
In life and especially in war, 'Do not come in second'.
Posted by Bernard Price on November 17,2009 | 09:26 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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