ARLINGTON HOUSE Historic Structures Report Voume 2

A. PAINTING OF ROOMS 1962-1963

During the winter of 1961-62 and spring of 1962, the following rooms were painted in the Custis-Lee Mansion: dining room (Room 115), the Custis bedroom (Room 106), the guest room (Room 107), the school and sewing room (Room 104), and several of the "hallways." On August 16, 1962, Director, National Capital Region, Jett informed his assistant regional director of operations and maintenance, "Due to the heavy visitor load (more than 300,000 persons have visited the mansion so far this year), much of the area of the peach colored walls and white trim of the hallways has become soiled and dirty from constant contact by these visitors. Continued washing has worn the paint thin or made it bare in some places. Retouching or feathering in a portion of the walls may be all that is necessary, especially in the hallways." Continuing, Jett wrote:

It is requested that the following painting be done at the Custis-Lee Mansion as soon as feasible:

Office and Study [Room 117]
Lower west wall and doorway of Conservatory [Room 116]
Entrance hallway [Room 111]
Wall of both stairs to second floor and also steps on sides of stair treads
Ceilings of upstairs bedrooms where scaling has taken place
Balustrades of outside stairways on west face

In the winter or early spring, consideration should be given to painting the Family Parlor, the Family Dining Room, and the upstairs rooms of the Museum building. In order to keep the Mansion presentable to the visiting public, some painting or retouching of the hallways and areas subject to constant contact and wear will be required at least in the spring and again in the autumn. [1]

The latter part of the proposed painting program was apparently carried out in the spring of 1963. President John F. Kennedy visited the Custis-Lee Mansion from about 4:05 to 4:20 p. m., Sunday, March 3, 1963. In a detailed report on this visit Cornelius W. Heine, Assistant Regional Director, Conservation, Interpretation and Use, National Capital Region, commented in part:

. . . from your report, it would seem that Park Guide Paul Q. Fuqua, who was on duty in the central hall [Room 111], did an excellent job in conducting the President through the Mansion. The renovation of the Mansion, the painting of the Family Parlor [Room 109] and Family Dining Room [Room 108] being particularly noticeable, gave Mr. Fuqua the opportunity to introduce the MISSION 66 program, which was unknown to the President, and led him to compliment the National Park Service in restoring the Mansion. . . . [2]

B. RESTORATION OF EXTERIOR OF ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1964-65

On September 18, 1964, Rudolph R. Bartel, Assistant Regional Director, Operations and Maintenance, directed the Division of Facilities Maintenance to begin the project of "Refurbishing the exterior of the Custis-Lee Mansion by sandblasting the exterior surfaces." Bartel wrote:

You are hereby authorized to proceed with the refurbishing of the exterior of Custis-Lee National Memorial. The cost of the work to be accomplished is chargeable to Job No. 56-151B. The scope of the work shall be essentially that outlined in Mr. Hinkle's memorandum of February 17.

This project has been discussed with Mr. Charles W. Lessig who has concurred in and approved the sandblasting of the exterior surfaces excluding the small portion of what is thought to be the original stucco finish. Mr. Lessig has also approved the use of a waterproof decorative—white resurfacer known as Re-Nu-It. You may proceed with procuring sufficient quantities of this material in order to proceed with the project as soon as the sandblasting is completed.

While I recognize the fact that no estimate has been made for masonry and carpentry repairs, you are authorized to proceed with such repairs as may be found necessary in the progress of the work. There are sufficient maintenance funds available to cover the cost of masonry and carpentry repairs. Mr. Lessig has assigned Mr. Don Myer to work with us on this project. We have asked that Mr. Myer visit the work site for the purpose of gaining firsthand knowledge as to conditions revealed, scope of the work, work methods, etc. We have also notified Mr. Lessig that he would be promptly informed should sandblasting reveal anything which may appear to be the closure of window and door openings or other structural alterations in the mansion itself.

Work was to commence on September 21 and the regional chief was requested "to provide me with a brief written narrative report outlining what has been accomplished, conditions encountered, or any other matter which may be of interest or historical importance. . . ." [3]

On September 24, Stanley W. McClure, Chief, Branch of National Memorials, requested the assistance of J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in analyzing the historical paint sequence on the exterior of the Custis-Lee Mansion. McClure explained:

The National Park Service is preparing the exterior of the Custis-Lee Mansion for restoration. In the past, your bureau has assisted us in analysis of paint sequences used in the interior and on some portions of the exterior of this house. The present work at the Mansion will remove all the exterior paint. This will be our last opportunity to check the original paint sequence.

We would like to test two samples in an effort to establish the color sequence of layers and the color of the marbleization streaking which should appear in the 1861-1864 paint layer. We are pressured by contract deadlines and will appreciate any assistance you may be able to give us. [4]

On September 30, 1964, the "refurbishing" project became converted to a "restoration" of the exterior, when Regional Director Jett informed the assistant regional director, operations and maintenance, National Capital Region:

The bill which established the Lee Mansion as a National Memorial (Pub. Law 74, H.J. Res. 164, 68 Cong., approved March 4, 1925) directed that it be restored to look as it did in 1861. Presently the outside paint is being removed by sand blasting to the original surface. This offers us an excellent opportunity to apply our knowledge of the exterior finish so that we may fulfill our obligation to restore the house to its 1861 appearance.

Documentary Evidence: There is extensive documentary evidence establishing the 1861 exterior appearance of Arlington House. For example, in a letter home (copy in files), a Civil War soldier described the house as being white in color. It is believed that the ground coat which was streaked to resemble marble was an off-white color. At the distance of the troop encampments, the house's marbleized exterior would have appeared to be white.

Pictographic Evidence: In 1861 the Union Army of the Potomac trained on Arlington Estate. Arlington House was used as headquarters and frequently formed a background for photographs of soldiers. Civil War photographs show definite designs resembling marble on the columns, pilasters, and cornices of the portico, and on the east side of the building. The first five of the photographs listed below show details of the marbleization. The last two show that the chimneys and the west wall were not plastered (stuccoed) and a different design of the steps leading to the center door including a canopy. A list of the photographs follows in chronological order.

1861 General McDowell and Staff	B 6246 N.A.
1862 General Heintzelman and Staff	B 1762 N.A.
1864 East Front and South Side	CN 5654
1864 East Front	BA 1502 N.A.
1864 South Side	CN 972 N.A.
1864 South Side and West Front	CN 969 N.A.
1864 West Front	CN 6799 N.A.

Physical Evidence: Some of the original plaster remains in place on the exterior walls. Samples from these are being analyzed by the F.B.I Laboratory. The first color put on these walls, ca. 1817, was French ochre. This color was followed by a series of yellows and off-whites. The exact date for the application of each cannot be established. No trace of the color of the marble streaking has been found. The small number of coats of paint suggest that the house has been scraped since 1861.

Restoration of outside paint based on evidence at hand: Following sand blasting and repair to the plaster (stucco), please paint the exterior of the house an off-white color; the columns, pilasters and the entire east front should be streaked dark grey to produce a marbleized effect. Use the photographs listed above to guide the restoration of the marble design. Please consult with Donald Myer, Architectural Historian, NCDC for exact color.

Since Congress stipulated that the Mansion be restored to its 1861 appearance, decisions regarding the color of the marbleized cornices of the portico, removal of the plaster (stucco) on the chimneys and on the west wall of the central portion of the Mansion, and reconstruction of the west steps and canopy to the center hall will be deferred and will be the subjects of subsequent memoranda. [5]

On October 22, the concerned Washington Office intervened and Acting Director A. Clark Stratton informed the Regional Director of the National Capital Region:

We are anxious that any work affecting the appearance of this most important and famous building be adequately documented and recorded. We suggest that you institute historic structures procedures by preparing and submitting the standard historic structures report adopted by the Service and described in the Historic and Prehistoric Structure Handbook. This will (1) provide a basis for review, (2) insure correctness by seeking out and presenting the historical facts, (3) provide justification and data against possible criticism, and (4) provide a written record of the proposed work for future reference. The doctoral thesis of Murray Nelligan, "Old Arlington," is an invaluable collection of source material and historical information and should provide most or all of the references necessary for the report. To this should be added information derived from the evidence in the structure itself and the FBI reports on paint samples and stucco material in your memorandum of September 30.

The marbleization must be very capably done if it is to be historically and aesthetically convincing. We would appreciate knowing your thoughts regarding the achieving of an acceptable application. Painters' manuals of the period should prove helpful. You may wish to experiment on another similar surface before applying the technique to the historic building itself.

We understand that the patching and painting now underway will seal the building surface for the winter months, and that the marbleization will not be begun until spring. This schedule will allow time for the preparation and approval of an historic structures report in accordance with approved procedure. [6]

The progress of this work was described by Assistant Regional Director Heine, to a visitor in a letter dated May 11, 1965. Heine wrote in part:

The National Park Service is in the process of extensively renovating the exterior of the building [the Custis-Lee Mansion]. Beginning in the fall of 1964, the paint on the outside walls was removed. The entire structure was restuccoed with the exception of the center portion of the back of the house. It was then necessary to allow the walls to thoroughly dry before repainting. . . .

Extensive research has been done to determine the color of the house during Lee's time. Within the next few months, it will be repainted to appear as it did in 1861, the last year the Lees resided here. The urns on the portico are being repaired, as well as the portico step which was damaged. . . . [7]

In June 1965, the staffs of the National Capital Region and National Capital Office of Design and Construction completed a "Historic Structures Report, Parts I and II, Exterior Repainting of the Custis-Lee Mansion," which was approved by the Assistant Director of the National Park Service on July 20, 1965. [8]

Work on the exterior of the mansion and marbleizing of the portico columns continued during the summer of 1965. On September 16, William H. Hendrickson, Acting Superintendent, Prince William Forest and George Washington Memorial Parkway, who was administering the Custis-Lee Mansion, explained to another visitor the restoration work taking place at the mansion:

The National Park Service is restoring the interior and exterior of Arlington House to appear as it did in 1861, the last year the Lees lived there. Our only source of information on the exterior appearance of the House are photographs taken during the Union occupation of 1861-1865. A photograph, believed to have been taken in 1861, shows marbleization of the columns. Later war-time photographs show this same effect. Our very substantial information concerning troop operations in the area during the war, includes no mention of the repainting of Arlington House or marbleization of the columns between 1861-1865. It therefore appears that the columns were marbleized prior to May, 1861, when the Lees resided there.

On the basis of the best available information gained from this extensive research, the National Park Service is restoring the exterior of the House to appear as we believe it did when Lee lived there in 1861. [9]

C. PAINTING OF ROOMS, 1965-66

While the exterior was being restored, the following rooms in the mansion were also painted in January and February 1965: north hall and stairs (Room 110); pantry (Room 101); center hall (Room 111); south hall and stairs (Room 113); conservatory (Room 116); upper hall (Room 201); cellar hall (Room BO-1); and cellar stairs. [10]

Invitations to bid on the contract to paint the exterior of the mansion were issued on November 3 and the bids were opened on November 16, 1965. On November 22, 1965, Superintendent Floyd Taylor of George Washington Memorial Parkway recommended that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Apex Decorating Company of Silver Spring, Maryland, for $11,850. [11]

Painting of the exterior was still in progress and additional rooms in the mansion were being painted during the spring of 1966. Superintendent Taylor informed a visitor:

You will be pleased to know that extensive painting is being done this spring. The hallways and stairways have been repainted and the exterior of the house, which has been restuccoed, is scheduled for painting. Throughout the year, repainting is done whenever necessary.

The National Park Service is restoring the Custis-Lee Mansion . . . . Consequently, electrical lighting, in any form, has not been introduced into the rooms. On dark days candles and lamps are lighted as they would have been in 1861.

Work on the exterior and marbleizing was completed in August 1966. [12]

D. INVESTIGATION OF HISTORIC PAINT COLORS, 1967

In January 1967 Architect E. Blaine Cliver submitted his report entitled, "Preliminary Report of Interior Paint Investigation, Custis-Lee Mansion," with copies of designated colors and Munsell chips. Tests were made on the south entrance, back and main hall, north staircase (Rooms 110, 111); pantry (Room 101); south staircase (Room 113); upstairs hall (Room 201); and an outside shutter. [13]

E. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULAR SCHEDULE FOR PAINTING INTERIOR OF MANSION, 1965-83

Beginning in 1965 and continuing to date, the National Park Service established the following schedule for the planned repainting of rooms in the Custis-Lee Mansion:

1. Hallways and rooms heavily utilized by visitors while passing through the house have had touch up painting every two years.

2. The interior of the historic rooms in the mansion have been repainted regularly at seven-year intervals. [14]

F. EFFORTS TO INITIATE MAJOR RESEARCH PROGRAM ON ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1966-1968

On October 27, 1966, Floyd B. Taylor, wrote to the Regional Director of the National Capital Region in an effort to enlist his support in instituting a major historical research program to study the Custis-Lee Mansion. Taylor explained:

In a recent reassessment of the research, restoration, and interpretative needs of the Custis-Lee Mansion, it has again become obvious that an accurate and professional restoration of the mansion and an effective interpretative program can be accomplished only, by the completion of (1) an Historic Structures Report, (2) an Historic Grounds Report, and (3) a Furnishings Plan . . . .

The fact that the Custis-Lee Mansion appears structurally sound and has its rooms furnished to such an extent that it can be opened to the public seems to work to its disadvantage in competing for research priority with newly acquired and still undeveloped historic areas elsewhere in the National Park System. If the Custis-Lee Mansion did not have the outstanding historical significance it does, and its annual visitation was not one of the largest among historic houses in the National Park System, it might be possible to justify delaying research for it in favor of new and undeveloped areas. This justification is, however, not possible, and therefore the site certainly merits recognition of serious research needs which would allow the most accurate restoration.

Though extensive research has been done, particularly by Mr. Murray Nelligan and Mrs. Agnes Downey Mullins, there are great gaps in our knowledge of the appearance of the structure in 1861 and the manner in which it was furnished. A comprehensive structural survey has never been completed. The War Department, for its work begun in 1925, did a structural survey but did not have access to the historical documentation Mr. Nelligan was to provide much later. Now, on the basis of Mr. Nelligan's and Mrs. Mullins' research and additional research which must be done, a team of architects, archeologists, and historians could produce the necessary comprehensive reports for the structure and the grounds.

After pointing out that the lack of information on the type of furnishings at Arlington in 1961 was a serious problem and demanded further research, Superintendent Taylor continued:

The Custis-Lee Mansion, located adjacent to the National Capital and thereby very much before the public eye, could be the showcase house of the National Park Service. It has the potential in its extremely interesting and significant history. With extensive sound research accomplished, the work necessary to complete the restoration of the structure and its grounds and the acquisition of appropriate furnishings can proceed. Even if it takes several years, we will be moving in the right direction. At present, with the exception of recent exterior painting, the restoration of the mansion is at a standstill. Lack of documented information may well have permitted repairs to the structure and alteration to the grounds which may now be almost irreversible. Opportunities to acquire appropriate furnishings may have been passed up because of the lack of information which would be in a Furnishings Plan. Much curatorial and management time is expended in considering the individual proposals of would-be-donors because the one good authority of a Furnishings Plan is not available for reference.

We feel that the Park Service cannot afford to neglect its responsibility for the restoration of the Mansion. This home has been contained in the system for 33 years, and an honest evaluation can only reveal that research and restoration has proceeded at an extremely slow pace.

The three major research projects recommended above are recognized as needed in the Master Plan for Custis-Lee Mansion which has been reviewed by the Region, has the recommendation of the Service Center, and now only awaits the approval of the Assistant Director, Cooperative Activities. These projects are surely needed to fulfill the National Park Service's obligation for the restoration and preservation of this site. [15]

Acting National Capital Regional Director Robert C. Horne forwarded these three projects, [16] and supported Superintendent Taylor's Assistant Director, Resource Studies, responded on November 22, 1966, writing in part:

We recognize the need for further historical research at the Custis-Lee Mansion. We have received [three] Resource Study Proposals (RSPs) . . . . We understand that these projects, proposed for FY 1968, are to be supported by M & P (Maintenance Preservation) funds.

Since the end result of these projects must be to serve as a basis for future development and construction at the Custis-Lee Mansion, they are essentially construction-related and should, we believe, be programmed accordingly. [17]

Superintendent Taylor responded on February 2, 1967 to the Assistant Director's memorandum. He wrote:

We appreciate the point made in a subject memorandum of November 22 by the Assistant Director, Resource Studies . . . to support not only the physical work of accurately restoring the house and grounds at Custis-Lee but, more importantly, at this moment, the detailed historical and architectural research necessary to do the work.

This approach seems most appropriate for the grounds at the mansion for the reason that we are reasonably certain that, with the exception of a south garden (still in the process of restoration), the grounds are not correct; a reasonable conjecture can be made as to the amount of work required to bring the grounds into a restored condition; a principal feature to be developed would be the vegetable garden which was known to be present in 1861. . . .

The mansion restoration is something different, however. The mansion appears restored and, in fact, may be nearly 100 percent accurate. The restoration has been done on a piecemeal basis dating to the army program begun in 1925. The thing to propose is that there be an adequate review of the historical record to produce plans of the house as it appeared in 1861. The restoration work that has been accomplished would then be weighed against this evidence. The job to be programed [sic] here is research. . . .

The idea of programing [sic] research first and of following the research report with a construction program is advisedly presented in the light of the work done on the north servants' quarters at Custis-Lee. Here, it appears that construction, in time, too closely followed research. New evidence which came to light during the construction period may not have been adequately considered so that the floor level and number of rooms in the "restoration" may not be correct. The finished product seems too bright and clean, so much so in fact that the rooms were easily pressed into temporary service for visitor accomodation [sic] simply by adding appropriate modern furnishings.

Furnishings to implement a furnishings plan, of necessity, would probably be acquired over a long period. Again, to the uncritical observer, the work [of furnishing the mansion] appears to have been done. What is needed, however, is review to provide an accurate-as-possible plan of the furnishings in place in the mansion in 1861 so that the job of selective retirement, installation, and replacement of furniture pieces can proceed.

To insure that some progress is made, we propose submitting [proposals for six studies] . . . . The asterisked ones, however, seem to us to be the ones to recommend for adoption.

*1. Restoration of the grounds including historical and landscape research to implement it.

2. Historical research only for a Historic Grounds Report, parts 1 and 2.

3. Restoration of the mansion including historical and architectural research to implement it.

4. Historical and architectural research only for a Historic Structures Report, parts I and II.

5. Authentic refurnishing of the mansion including historical research to implement it.

6. Historical research only to provide a Furnishings Plan. [18]

On March 21, 1967, Superintendent Taylor requested research for three studies: "Custis-Lee Mansion Historic Structure Report, Part II," "Historic Grounds Report," and "Furnishings Study." Continuing, Taylor wrote:

The implementation of all three is needed to enable the park staff to knowledgeably manage the site on a daily basis and make effective decisions regarding long range plans. Currently, the clearest case is provided by the need for a completed Historic Structure Report.

The mansion should have an interior painting and this was recently arranged for but in the process of doing this we consulted with the Acting Chief Architect, Historic Structures and HABS, WSC, (Historic American Buildings Survey, Washington Service Center) who advised against the painting . . . . [19]

As a result of this programming, the Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, assigned Historian Charles H. McCormick to conduct the research and write the documented research reports. McCormick produced the following studies:

1. Historical Resource Study Proposal . . . Custis-Lee Mansion Furnishings Study," (July 20, 1968), which presented documentary evidence on room use and original furnishings.

2. Historical Resources Study Proposal . . . . "Custis-Lee Mansion Historical Data for Grounds," (June 1, 1968). The study attempted to document as fully as possible both with direct and comparative evidence the appearance of the 3.5-acre portion of the old Arlington estate on which the Custis-Lee Mansion was situated as it was when the Lees left it in May 1861. This report provides the documentary evidence necessary to produce an 1861 historical base map for the site. [20]

3. Historical Resources Study Proposal "Historic Structures Report, Part I, Historical Data Section, Custis-Lee Mansion," (July 1968). This study includes a summary of history, 1802-61 and outlines additional research required for the mansion's history period 1861-1968. Historian McCormick never commenced the projected "Historic Structures Report, Part II. Historical Data Section for the Custis-Lee Mansion." In 1968, he left the National Park Service. [21]

G. REPLACEMENT OF PLASTER SOFFIT IN CEILING OF MAIN PORTICO, 1968

In October 1968 a contract in the amount of $2,495 was awarded to Fitzgerald and Company, Inc., of East Riverdale, Maryland to replace the plaster of the ceiling of the main portico of the Custis-Lee Mansion. Under the contract the work consisted "of removing [the] existing plastered ceiling to the point of intersection of the soffit and the plaster cornice at its borders." The cornice was to be preserved and protected from damage, and the ceiling was then replastered and the historical effect restored. Work under this contract was accepted on November 7, 1968. [22]

H. SEARS, ROEBUCKAND COMPANY'S PROPOSAL TO PAINT INTERIOR OF ARLINGTON HOUSE AND NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH, 1970

On November 17, 1970, Dr. Ernest A. Connally, Chief, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, wrote to the General Superintendent, Office of National Capital Parks, regarding the Custis-Lee Mansion:

We understand that negotiations are now underway with the Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the interior painting of the Custis-Lee House, a project Sears initiated for its advertising value.

Mr. [Henry] Judd visited the house on November 9 to see what would be involved before the painting could proceed. First, we must determine the correct colors for the historic period. Although layering of paint has been done, it was poorly done and inadequately protected, so much further study is needed and the results matched to a standard such as the Munsell Color System which we use. Nearly all evidence was destroyed by the Park Service when the house was painted some 15 years ago.

We also need to determine why some walls are so wet and to correct that condition before repainting. We should also conduct a badly needed architectural investigation before repainting or the new paint job will be badly scarred when it is done. All this is more than a casual study and will require some time and funds to complete. We suggest that a full study be programmed as in the next possible fiscal year and the repainting be delayed until that is completed. [23]

On December 29, 1970, Superintendent Taylor commented on Dr. Connally's letter:

I discussed the scope of the Custis-Lee Mansion project with Dr. Connally and with Mr. Judd, individually, via telephone. I concurred in the essential significance of Dr. Connally's November 17 memorandum at the outset. After further appraisal, I now fully and unequivocably support the position that the National Park Service abide his recommendation that we not proceed with this generous offer of a "free" paint job, which could possibly result in permanent destruction and loss of opportunity to obtain authentic architectural and historic information which the Service does not have at present.

In my contact with Dr. Connally's office, I explored to some degree what would be involved from the standpoint of "time and money" in developing the information to be obtained from architectural and historic research. The best estimate is that it will take approximately 3 to 4 months for the architectural research. This will, of course, include the examination of each significant area of the interior, as well as other determinations pertaining to the structural condition of the mansion. There is some concern over certain unexplained conditions apparent, such as moisture appearance on the walls in some areas, etc. This segment of research will cost from $8,000 to $10,000.

Historic research should be accomplished simultaneously with, or before, the architectural research. There is need to assemble, correlate, and coordinate all the available facts possible pertaining to the residence. As a minimum, this should cover the period from immediately prior to the Civil War through the years of military occupation and use of the structure by the War Department as headquarters office for the national cemetery, as well as documentation of work accomplished since NPS administration. Without this research, it will be impossible to authenticate with any degree of certainty the color scheme of any given period, or when and by whom or to what extent architectural changes were made. We are currently assigning the historic research aspect to Mrs. Ann Fuqua, of our staff, and arranging through Mr. Ralph Lewis for periodic (perhaps one day a week) assistance from Mrs. Agnes Mullins, whose background research on various aspects of the mansion is highly regarded.

In presenting the status of Custis-Lee Mansion at this date, we must come to your Office for important decisions which are most essential: (1) Consideration on behalf of scheduling the $10,000 for the architectural research study of Custis-Lee Mansion, and (2) An immediate appraisal by appropriate disciplines to provide guidelines and instructions on current maintenance needs for the interior until such time as the more desirable thorough restoration and painting may be accomplished. [24]

The exchange of letters ended plans to have Sears, Roebuck and Company paint the interior of the Custis-Lee Mansion in 1970, and it probably led to a meeting that took place at the mansion on March 10, 1971. The east portico wood and stone steps were reconstructed in 1971, after having lasted some ten years. [25]

I. ARCHITECTURAL STUDY OF MANSION ROOF AND GUTTER PROBLEMS, 1971

On March 10, 1971, a meeting was held at the Custis-Lee Mansion in which problems affecting the structure's stability were presented. In attendance were Superintendent Taylor, and representatives of the Washington Office, Eastern Service Center, and park staff. Two problems were considered: (1) the water stains that were occurring at several locations within the mansion at the exterior walls—observations by NPS site personnel, over a period of time, indicated that the existing system of gutters and downspouts were inadequate for the roof areas they served. This had permitted excessive amounts of water to soak into the exterior walls, particularly on the eastern facade of the structure; and (2) the load capacity of the second floor structural system, which was being subjected to heavy loads due to heavy visitation of the mansion.

Architect Franzen was assigned to study the problems. His report was entitled, "Custis-Lee Mansion Structure Study." Using nine historical photographs of the mansion's exterior taken during the Civil War or shortly thereafter, and data from Nelligan's "Old Arlington—The Story of the Lee Mansion National Memorial," Franzen designed a system of enlarged gutters and downspouts that otherwise resembled the 1861 system. The installation of the new and heavier system, however, required lifting the existing slate roof on the north and south wings, and Franzen suggested that as a part of this work, the wing roofs should also be restored to their 1858-61 appearance. Franzen also made a limited structural inspection of the joist system on the second floor and found it in excellent condition. In the basement he recommended that the brick walls be waterproofed on their exterior face below grade. [26]

The study was reviewed, and on October 29, 1971, Superintendent David Richie, George Washington Memorial Parkway, recommended approval to the Director, National Capital Parks, provided that certain alterations were made in the 1861 roof restoration plan. Richie wrote, "Since Mr. Franzen completed his report, information has been acquired [from the October 17, 1859, application that Lee filled out to purchase fire insurance on the Mansion from the Hartsford Fire Insurance Company] which documents the roof of the center section of the house as being covered with slate in 1859. The roofs of the two wings of the house are documented as being covered with gravel in 1859." [27] This memorandum saved the National Park Service from committing serious historical errors in plans to restore the roofs of the two wings to their 1858-61 appearance.

J. SUMMARY, RESTORATION OF ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1962-1971

More than $14,345 was expended on repairs and improvements to Arlington House between 1962-69.

1. Painting of the Mansion

a. Exterior Painting

1964—begin first study of exterior historical paint colors of mansion. Historic Structure Report "Exterior Repainting of Custis-Lee House," July 30, 1965.

1964—paint is sandblasted to its original surface and the entire structure restuccoed except for the center portion of the back or west facade of the house.

1965—exterior repainted. "Historic colors" used.

1965-66—columns of east (front) portico marbleized. This work restored exterior to 1858-61 appearance.

b. Interior Painting (Historic Room Colors Used)

1962—painted Rooms 106, 107, 104, 115, and several hallways.

1963—painted Rooms 108 and 109

1965—painted Rooms 101, 110, 111, 113, 116, 201, BO-1, and cellar stairs

1965—following painting schedule instituted in 1965 and followed to date:

hallways and areas frequented by visitors given touchup painting every two years.

historic rooms only viewed by visitors, painted at seven-year intervals.

1967—E. Blaine Cliver, "Preliminary Report of Interior Paint Investigation." Studied Rooms 101, 110, 111, 112, 113, 201, and one outside shutter.

2. East Portico Ceiling and Steps

1968—plaster soffit in ceiling of east or front portico falls. This rebuilt under Contract 14-10-6-960-195 by Fitzgerald and Company of East Riverdale, Maryland, for $2,495 in October.

1971—wooden and sandstone steps, rebuilt in 1861-style in 1935 and rebuilt again in 1961, reconstructed for the third time in 1971. These steps have to be replaced at 10-year intervals.

3. Architectural Investigation of Arlington House

1971-April—Architect Archie W. Franzen completes "Custis-Lee Mansion Structure Study."

1971—1. Architect Franzen prepares plans to replace the copper gutters and downspouts that had been installed by the War Department in 1928 with an enlarged system modeled after the gutter and downspout system in use on the mansion in 1861.

1971—2. Recommends existing slate roofs of north and south wings be restored to 1861 appearance.

1971—3. Makes a limited structural inspection of the joist system of the second floor and finds it to be in excellent condition.

1971— Architect Franzen recommends basement brick walls be waterproofed on their exterior face below grade.

4. Historical Research

1968—Historian Charles H. McCormick completes two documentary studies: "Custis-Lee Mansion Historical Data for Grounds," June 1, 1968. A study of the appearance of ground and buildings in the 1855-61 period. "Custis-Lee Mansion Furnishing Study," July 20, 1968. Presents documentary evidence on Custis and Lee furnishings in mansion in 1855-61 period.