Sections

Arlington National Cemetery was established to shame rebel General Robert E. Lee

(All photos courtesy of the Library of Congress)

by ·

Arlington National Cemetery is a sprawling 624 acres of prime real estate, directly across the Potomac River from Washington D.C. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, the hills overlooking the Capitol and the White House were a perfect spot for artillery. And Arlington, right on the cusp of the Union’s capital, was part of Virginia, which was about to secede from the Union.

It also happened to be the home of Col. Robert E. Lee, one of the most respected officers in the United States Army. He’d served with distinction in Mexico and put down John Brown’s raid on the U.S. arsenal at Harper’s Ferry in 1859. Lee was offered command of all Union troops at the outset of the war. Torn between his oath as an officer of the U.S. Army and his state voting to go to the Confederacy, Lee chose the latter, resigning his commission and becoming a brigadier general in the Confederate Army.

That the U.S. Army would seize Lee Mansion was a given, as it was needed to protect Washington D.C. and the seat of the United States government, but what happened in 1864 was unexpected. With the dead from the Civil War rapidly filling Washington’s existing cemeteries, U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton signed the order to allow Quartermaster General Meigs to begin to bury the Union’s dead right outside of Lee Mansion, forever making it inhospitable for the family to inhabit it again.

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING.

Your subscription is important and supports our editorial integrity. Advertisers are sometimes afraid of being associated with controversial news topics, and your subscription is vital to ensuring we can continue to publish the courageous news we are known and respected for.

Get Insider Access and Expert Analysis Today

SUBSCRIBE NOW

or Log In

BECAUSE, FACTS DON’T TAKE SIDES

Your Subscription Supports Honest News Efforts

TRY 4 WEEKS FOR $1.99

Comments

Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login.
Here’s a sample of the comments on this post.

  • Daniel

    Third best general in the south? 5th best general in the whole war?
    Overrated as shit? The Patrick Ewing and Carmelo Anthony of Generals?
    I wish more was done about Nathan Bedford Forrest.
    Good article though. I actually learned this fact, from some alternate history novel.

  • Doug S

    If the Emancipation Proclamation was passed prior to the war I’d say that could be an argument. But since it was passed over a year after the war started and was only done as a political move to try to gain support from France and Britain for the North, as well as hurt the economy in the South, it seems the war was never actually about slavery in the moral aspect. Just another case of the winner choosing the narrative.

  • Kenton M

    I have to say I agree that this was the right move( and also a well known fact for awhile now). He fought for an insurgency that was based, at its core ,on the ownership and brutalization of human beings.

  • Doug S

    He was a respected man of his time and fought for stronger State’s rights instead of a stronger federal government. The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government more power, it limits and specifies exactly what they are allowed to do. It gives the States and the people more power, as written in the Bill of Rights (10th Amendment). Not too sure how fighting for that makes him a traitor?

  • tim e

    He was a traitor – he never should have received a dime – should have been made to live there and look out at the graves for the rest of his life.