A14_MR_RFI_Fresco_Restoration_-_SOW_Attachments_A-F_(01_21_2026)_2.pdf

ARHO Fresco Restoration and Repair

Attachment B

South Slave Quarters (Above); North Slave Quarters (Below)

Main House Fresco 1

Main House Fresco 2

Attachment C

JBM-HH Form 190-16x, 16 May 18

Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall (JBM-HH) Installation Access Request For use of this form, see JBM-HH Reg 190-16, Proponent is Directorate of Emergency Services

Privacy Act Advisement: The information requested is for the purpose of granting access to the JBM-HH installation. Providing requested information, to include your social security number (SSN), is voluntary. However, your access may not be granted if all requested information is not provided. Authorities: Executive Orders (EO) 10450, 10865, and 12333. The SSN, required for record accuracy, is requested pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; AR 190-13, The Army Physical Security Program, and EO 9397. Principal Purpose(s): The information collected on this form is used to screen and identify access applicants to JBM-HH who may have criminal histories or involvements which preclude installation access. Completed forms are used to conduct background records checks for determinations of the eligibility of applicants for access to JBM-HH.

Completed forms are covered by official SORNs. Disclosure: Voluntary. However, failure of the applicant to complete any of the applicant required sections may result in refusal of access to JBM-HH. An applicant’s SSN is used to conduct law enforcement records checks and Government data base queries. All information is “For Official Use Only” and will only be released to the JBM-HH Police Department or other authorized agency personnel for the purposes of determining access eligibility and/or enforcing Federal, state, local law or regulations. Information retrieved from law enforcement records checks and Government data base queries will not be disclosed to the applicant IAW National Crime Information Center and Interstate Identification Index laws, user agreements, Army Directive 2014-05 and official guidance.

Section A. Visitor Applicant Information

Type of Applicant: (check appropriate box)

VISITOR CONTRACTOR OTHER ___________________

1. Name (last, first, middle initial): 2. Date of Birth: 3. Gender:

Male

Female

4. Race:

5. Social Security Number: 6a. Driver’s License or State ID Number: 6c. U.S. or U.S Territory Passport Number (if state driver’s license or ID not available): 6b. Issuing State or Territory:

7. Residential Address: (Include City/State/ZIP Code) 8. Home Phone Number: 9. Cellular Phone Number:

10. Are you a U.S. Citizen?

Yes No

If you are a U.S. Citizen, skip questions 10a thru 10d

10a. Do you have a Visa, Foreign Passport or Official Military Orders allowing travel, work or residency in the U.S.?

Yes No

Please indicate what documentation you have and the corresponding alphanumeric number: ___________________________________________________

10d. Do you have a Foreign National Number (FNN): Yes No

(If yes, list your FNN: __________________________________________________________________________)

10b. Work Authorization Card (aka; Employment Authorization Card): Form I-766 Permanent Resident Card (aka; Green Card): Form I-551

List the alphanumeric identifier for your work authorization document: ________________________________________________________________________________

10c. Do you have a Alien Registration Number (ARN): Yes No

(If yes, list your ARN: ______________________________________________________________________________________)

Note: If you are a non-U.S. citizen, you must provide all relevant documentation for verification. The visitor Control Center (VCC) is required to make and retain photocopies of all docu-mentation which allows you to work, reside or visit the U.S. for the purpose of installation access.

Section B. Contractor/Vendor Information (If Applicable)

1. Contractor/Vendor Company Name: 2. Company Phone Number:

4. Contractor/Vendor Address: (Include City/State/ZIP Code) 5. Contractor/Vendor Company Point of Contact:

3. Contract Number: (if applicable)

6. Contractor/Vendor Applicant Category:

Place a check beside the description which best describes your contract category.

CAC eligible Contractor Non-CAC eligible Contractor

7. Requested Duration of Access:

(Not to exceed one year)

8. Contract Dates and Work to Be Performed:

11. Applicant Category: Please place a check beside the description which best describes your category.

Non-DoD Affiliate Visitor Gold Start Family Member Foreign Military Member on Official Orders Taxi/Limo/Uber or Lift Driver Foreign National

Family Care Provider Employee of JBM-HH Resident Volunteer Tow Truck Driver Commercial Delivery Moving Company

Guest of JBM-HH Resident DRMWR Member Event Attendee Thrift Shop Other _____________________________________

12. Requested Duration of Access: (not to exceed 1 year) Requested Date(s)/Time(s) of Visit

From Date: _______________________________________ To Date: _________________________________________

From Time: ________________________ To Time: ____________________________

13. Justification for Pass:

JBM-HH Form 190-16x, 16 May 18

Section E. Background Verification

Security Force Use Only– Applicant Does Not Fill Out This Section

1. Type of NCIC-III Check Completed: VCIN WALES

Result: Derogatory Information Found No Derogatory Information Found

No Record Match

2. TSDB Check Completed: YES NO

Derogatory Information Found No Derogatory Information Found N/A

3. ALERTS Check Completed: YES NO

Derogatory Information Found No Derogatory Information Found N/A

4. Does a Waiver packet need to be provided to the applicant?

YES NO

5. If yes, was a Waiver packet provided to the applicant? YES NO

6. How was the waiver packet delivered to the applicant?

In Person Via email to the sponsor Other: ___________________ N/A

7. If a waiver packet was not provided to the applicant or sponsor, please explain why:

1. Printed Name: (last, first, middle initial): 2. Signature: 3. Date: (month, day, year)

Section F. Pass Information

1. Type of Pass Issued: Approved Disapproved

24 Hour Visitor Pass 30 Day Visitor Pass 60 Day Visitor Pass 90 Day Visitor Pass 6 Month Visitor Card 1 Year Visitor Card

Other (explain type of pass and length): ___________________________________________________________________

Validity Date Range of Pass: From ___________________________________ To ______________________________________

Section G. Security Force Conducting Check and Issuing Pass Information

Disposition: This information will be retained and kept on file for two years.

Section D. Sponsor Information

1. Name (last, first, middle initial): 2. Grade/Rank/Status: 3. Date of Birth: 4. Gender:

Male Female

5a. Driver’s License or State ID Number: 5b. Issuing State or Territory: 5c. U.S. or U.S Territory Passport Number (if state driver’s license or ID not available): 6. Work Phone:

7. Organization/Unit (for Active Duty or Civilian DoD Employees Only): 8. Government Email:

11. Sponsor’s Certification:

I certify that the applicant meets the justification requirements as indicated in JBM- HH Regulation 190-16, Access Control Policy, for access privileges. Furthermore, I certify that the applicant requires a Visitor Pass as indicated above in order to per-form assigned duties, conduct official business or has valid purpose for JBBMH-HH access.

11a. Sponsor’s Signature: (invalid if incomplete)

9. Are you the COR or CoTR:

Yes No

10. If you are not the COR or CoTR, list the name, telephone number and email of the COR or CoTR:

Name: _______________________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________ Email: _______________________________________________________

2. Applicant’s Signature:

The data retrieved for installation access vetting is “For Official Use Only” and will be maintained and used in strict confidence in accordance with Federal, state, local laws and regulations.

Personnel record screening, utilizing the National Crime Information Center and Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN), the Washington Area Law Enforcement System (WALES), the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB), Army Law Enforcement Reporting and Tracking System (ALERTS) and Installation Debarment Lists, is a voluntary process. Applicants requesting JBM-HH access are not required to submit to personal record screening; however person(s) who elect not to authorize the personnel record screening and vetting process will not be granted access to JBM-HH whether escorted or unescorted.

By signing below the applicant asserts the following:

-I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the information on and attached to this request for JBM-HH Installation Access Control Pass request, including any attached application materials, is true, correct, complete, and made in good faith.

-I understand that a false or fraudulent answer to any question or item on any part of this application or its attachments may be grounds for the denial of installation access.

-I understand that any information I give may be verified and/or examined for the purpose of determining eligibility for JBM-HH installation access and/or the execution of Federal, state, local laws and regulations.

-I consent to the release of information about my criminal history from law enforcement or criminal justice agencies, law enforcement state or federal data bases, criminal history record information, federal installations or properties and other authorized employees or representatives of the Federal Government.

-I understand that my consent is voluntary and I may refuse to give my consent.

-I understand I have the right to refuse authorized representatives of JBM-HH to obtain my criminal history.

I understand that derogatory results of any such inquiries may result in the denial of installation access and/or the execution of an outstanding legal service or warrant from information obtained through authoritative law enforcement data bases.

-I understand that information released by records custodians and sources of information is for the official use by the Federal Government only for purposes provided in this form, and may be redisclosed by the Government only as authorized by law. Copies of this authorization that show my signature are as valid as the original release signed by me.

-I assert I understand all of the information stated herein and have requested clarification or explanation of any terms, concepts or procedures which were unclear to me.

-I hereby consent to have my name and provided identifying information vetted utilizing any or all of the following systems: NCIC -III, VCIN, WALES, the TSDB and ALERTS.

Section C. Authorization For Criminal Records Release

1. Applicant’s Printed Name (last, first, middle initial): 3. Date: (month, day, year)

Attachment D

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 1

OLIN CONSERVATION, INC.

Conservation of easel and wall paintings ~ Founded 1969 / Incorporated 1983

9447 Rabbit Hill Road, Great Falls, Virginia 22066

Phone: 703.759.3581 ~ Fax: 703.759.0016 ~ olinconservation@aol.com

OWNER: National Park Service (NPS), Arlington House, Lee Mansion

SCOPE: Stabilization and conservation of the west wall painting, stair landing

ARTIST: G.W. Custis CONSERVATORS: Olin, Luzeckyj, Nikodon, Weaver

DATE: Ca. 1820 – 1830 DATE OF TREATMENT: March – June, 2013

OBJECT: Fresco, fresco secco SCOPE: Stabilization and Conservation

SUBJECT: Animal figures, lion and tiger

LOCATION: Main house, stair landing, west elevation

REPORT OF TREATMENT

Scaffolding was installed beneath the west elevation of the stair landing area. Scaffolding allowed for limited access and egress through the corridor. The wall painting condition was documented using high resolution, digital format photography. Photographic documentation recorded pre-conservation condition, the process and post-conservation results.

The painting is located within the upper realms of the wall, above an arch and just beneath the crown molding. The area beneath the painting, within the legs of the groin wall, was covered with layers of flat paint. This area had been sampled (cross sectional analysis) during our study.

The samples revealed that nine layers of wall paint existed (image 1). These layers transitioned from the white found on the surface, through a series of grays and ochre, with the underlying layer in the region below being pale and pinkish ochre - presumed to be the original toned mineral paint.

Within the area below the painting, we identified significant deterioration within the flat paint layers, and significant loss of the underlying tone (image 2). Deterioration was in the form of delamination of paint – beginning at the skim coat plaster. The underlying tone, presumed to be the original, was revealed in test areas to be largely intact. The underlying tone also appeared to compliment the colors within the fresco. With curatorial oversight, it was agreed that the lower most paint layer, revealed and conserved, would provide an appropriate foil for the image within the fresco area, and more consistent with the artist’s original intent. As such, the decision was made to remove the top seven layers of flat paint as carefully as possible, minimize the eighth layer and stabilize the lower level (presumably original paint which remained), then fill and inpaint the flat painted areas of wall to recreate the original, historic effect.

The surface layers of flat paint were reduced with Peel Away #7. The treated areas were then neutralized. The mid-layers of non-original flat paint were further reduced using methylene chloride poultice in areas and benzyl alcohol gel, followed by mechanical removal with a scalpel.

The final effort to reduce the flat paint (the eighth layer) involved a cotton swab application of an aqueous solution bicine and sodium hydroxide solution conditioned to a pH of 8.5, followed by mechanical means. Upon reduction of the covering layers of flat paint, the surface was cleared with naphtha and neutralized with distilled water. The flat paint surface area was then brush varnished with acryloid B-72. Losses within this area were filled with Becker’s latex spackle and

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 2 textured (image 3). The fills were toned with aqueous-based pigments, and then sealed with acryloid B-72. The losses, abrasions and thinned areas were then inpainted using Maemeri

Conservation pigments. With curatorial oversight, it was decided to apply inpainting in a selective manner, and not to completely overpaint the wall area.

Located within the upper realm of the image, just north of center, there was an area of flat paint that extended down into the image in a half ovoid shape (image 4). We suspect this area was originally a repair, subsequently covered with layers of flat paint, in a process similar to the wall beneath the image. This flat paint in this area was removed in a similar fashion to the flat paint below, with the exception of the Peel Away #7 process, and more emphasis on the mechanical process – in order to mitigate any threat to the original layers of paint within the original fresco layers beneath.

Areas of destabilized and disrupted lamina (powdering, efflorescence, local fracturing along the cracks and micro-flaking) within the fresco area (painting imagery) were secured and stabilized via local injection of Avalure AC 315 (4% solids in isopropyl alcohol). Application of Avalure

AC 315 was via a brush. Areas of stabilization included powdering and destabilized material in the upper right quadrant (within the region 14” right of the left edge and 18” up from the bottom edge) and around the structural cracks - such as those centrally located along the bottom edge of the painting and those radiating in a diagonal manner from a central location on the far left edge of the painting. The Avalure applications were allowed to cure 24 hours.

The painting was mechanically dusted using a soft, sable hair brush with a vacuum placed just above the paint surface to catch dislodged dust and dirt particles. Layers of ambient grime and imbedded accretions were removed from the paint surface using the following process (images 5 and 6):

1. Brush application (soft bristle, medium length) of Pemulin TR2 gel poultice with citric mono, EDTA, Triton X and Triethylomine conditioned to a pH of 8.

2. Dry swab removal of poultice.

3. Rinse with solution of bicine and sodium hydroxide conditioned to a pH of 8.5

4. Blot dry with absorbent, lint free cotton pads.

5. Final rinse with distilled water to clear all residual solution.

6. Blot dry.

Previous applications of repaint were apparent before the cleaning, and additional areas became visible during cleaning. Repaint mostly consisting of aqueous bound pigments and were removed with the aqueous cleaning outlined above. Residual deposits of repaint and areas of wall paint splatter and over-brushing (over-brushing being especially apparent along the upper edge, immediately beneath the cornice) were softened with ethanol applied via swab, then removed with an aqueous solution of bicine and sodium hydroxide conditioned to a pH of 8.5.

Certain areas of the image exhibited minor and localized discolorations – perhaps blanching.

Examples of this discoloration were found within the eyebrows of the lion, in the stripes of the tiger’s neck and within the tiger’s toes. These areas were saturated with Avalure AC 315 (3% solids in isopropyl alcohol). Saturation effectively reduced the discoloration. A thin, brush coat of Avalure AC 315 (4% solids in isopropyl alcohol with the addition of Tinuvin 123) was

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 3 applied over the paint surface. Tinuvin ® 123 is a liquid hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) based on amino-ether functionality. Its inclusion is intended to reduce the UV radiation which reaches the paint surface. It should be considered as less than 30% protection from UV radiation.

Avalure AC 315 was used in place of a more traditional “varnish” in order to provide a protective barrier with the following properties:

According to testing at Winterthur Conservation lab, it is not prone to discoloration

Maintains a hard, tack free surface after curing, allowing for dusting without abrasion

Reversible in aqueous solution conditioned to a pH of 8.5 (or isopropyl alcohol)

Permeable (allowing moisture within the wall to pass through and not become trapped beneath). Breathability is important for structural reasons and to minimize future blanching.

Slight UV inhibiting properties (w/ Tinuvin 123)

Stabilizing agent against future efflorescence.

Application of fill within existing losses was limited to larger aperture cracks. Fills were developed using Becker’s latex spackle, and textured to match the topography of the surrounding surface. Areas of discoloration as well as the filled cracks and losses were inpainted using

Maemeri Conservation pigments applied in an objective manner.

Olin Conservation, Inc.

David L. Olin, Fellow AIC

Chief of Conservation

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 4

PROCESS IMAGES

Image 1: Flat paint layers – West elevation, south side leg

Image 2: Flat paint deterioration, West elevation, north side

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 5

Image 3: West elevation, south leg, after cleaning, consolidation and filling

Image 4: Flat paint extension into upper realm of image, before treatment

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 6

Image 5: During surface cleaning of image area, after removal of flat paint upper right.

Image 6: Detail of cleaning results (right before / left after)

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 7

SELECT IMAGES

Wall paint extending onto image, along upper edge – before treatment

Delineation between fresco image and revealed flat paint beneath – during treatment

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 8

Flat paint removal process – south side

During cleaning

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 9

Filling of crack, south side, before inpainting

Overall painting: Before Treatment

Overall painting: After Treatment

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 10

West elevation: Before Treatment

West elevation: after Treatment

Olin Conservation, Inc. Arlington House, Lee Mansion, Report of Treatment: June 2013 11

CONSERVATION TREATMENT: APPLIED PRODUCT INFORMATION

Avalure ® ac 315: Acrylic copolymer, polyacrylic acid (PAA), Lubrizol Advanced

Materials, Inc. Soluble in isopropyl alcohol and aqueous solutions above pH 8.

Tinuvin ® 123: BASF Canada Inc., Mississauga, Molecular formula - ON C28 H52 N2 O4. C8 H18. C4H10 O2

Beckers Latex Spackle: Polyvinyl acetate and calcium carbonate spackle, Beckers Farg, Stockholm, Sweden. Remains soluble in aqueous solutions in conjunction with solvent application to remove any saturated resins.

Maemeri Restoration Colors: Mixed with Mastic resin and refined hydrocarbon, Maemeri

S.P.A. Remains soluble in hydrocarbon solvents.

Acryloid B-72 (Paraloid B-72), ethyl methacrylate co-polymer: Rohm and Haas. Remains soluble in hydrocarbon solvents.

MONITORING AND PERIODIC MAINTENANCE

This painting is exposed to environmental fluctuations, both temperature and humidity, somewhat outside of those considered appropriate for an artifact of this nature. The exhibit area is washed in daylight and exposed to pedestrian traffic on a daily basis. The primary supporting wall substrate is prone to vibration and settling. Periodic maintenance of the exhibit area is conducted and architectural components are subject to periodic repairs, repainting and general cleaning.

The wall painting should be monitored on a seasonal basis – winter and summer, to note any surface developments associated with heat and moisture. Such developments might include efflorescence or blooming of the surface (identifiable by any whitish haze). After extreme weather events, the painting should be reviewed to note any external penetration of moisture.

Monitoring should be undertaken from a ladder, allowing access to the entire surface, by a knowledgeable custodian (trained by a conservator). Any alterations should be photographically documented and brought to the attention of a conservator.

Given the venue, it is inevitable that ambient accretions will become deposited to the porous surface of the painting. The painting has been coated with Avalure AC 315. The material properties of this coating are outlined above. Eventual surface cleaning will likely become necessary, at multi-year intervals, depending on the amount of grime and accretion built up. If empirical evidence does not otherwise dictate the need for surface cleaning, discrete swab tests should be performed tri-annually of this treatment, to determine if there is sufficient accumulation to warrant surface cleaning (above the surface coat). Surface cleaning should be performed only as needed to avoid damage to the existing coating, or to the original paint surface. Cleaning should only be undertaken by a trained paintings conservator. As the Avalure

AC 315 coating is soluble in aqueous solutions with a pH greater than 8.5, cleaning of the surface should employ only aqueous solutions with a pH of around 7. There should be no need to employ solvents during the surface cleaning process. If the surface coating needs to be removed, an aqueous solution of just above 8.5 should effectively solubilize the coating or it can be solubilized with isopropyl alcohol. The later will inevitably solubilize the inpainting as well. Any future surface coatings should not necessarily be applied over the existing coating and should consider the need of the coating to “breath” – not trap moisture passing through the substrate.

Attachment E

u. Restoration of Murals on Walls of Main Hall ( Room 111)

The estimate of December 11, 1928, included $1,000.00 to

11restore historic mural decorations." In his orders of May 29, 1929, the quartermaster general instructed the depot supply officer to restore the mural painting on the frieze "over the stairs [at the west end] in the hall

[room 111], and also the painted panels on the exterior of the slaves' quarters, using the services of an artist approved by the Quartermaster

General. Examine for evidence of mural decorations on south side of hall frieze. 11 In his September 24, 1929 progress report, Mortimer noted that the work was 11partially completed. Restoration of painting cannot be properly done until all other work completed."

On November 15, 1929, Brigadier General Bash wrote to Charles

Moore, Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, seeking advice on restoring the murals in the mansion and on the exterior of the Slaves'

Quarters. With ·regard to the mansion, Bash wrote:

At the rear [west] end of the main hall [room 6 or 111] of the Mansion proper, there is a frieze, consisting of hunting scenes ... painted by Mr. Custis. This has faded considerably and is rather dirty, although the design is still fairly clear:

Your advice is desired as to how this wall painting should be treated. Should it be left as is, should it be cleaned, or should an �empt be made to restore it to its original color and freshness?

Moore, responding on November 19, wrote:

The Commission of Fine pleased to consider the November 15th, with Arlington Mansion

Arts, at their meeting yesterday, were recommendations made in your letter of reference to the restoration of the

The question of preserving the panels painted by Mr. Custis, over the doors of the 'slaves quarters', and the hunting scenes at the rear end of the main hall of the mansion, was brought to the particular attention of the painter member of the Commission, Mr. Ezra Winter: The Commission concur in his

128. RG 92, Entry 1891, Box 67, File 600.3, November 15, 1929.

recommendation that the panels be re-painted but 1291at the hunting scenes be cleaned only, by a careful process.

No further work was done on the murals for some time. In the April

9, 1930, report of restoration work yet to be accomplished were two items: 1. $100.00 for "Restoration of mural paintings on slave quarters", and 2. $500.00 for "Restoration of mural painting in main over west door. 11 No further work, however, was done on these two� projects during 1930. On November 10 it was reported, 11As yet, no artist has been secured for this work and restoration . 11

By March 1931, the projects appear to have gotten out of hand. In a newspaper article dated March 23, 1931, it was announced:·

Under a contract let last week, Albert Nelson Davis, young portrait painter of this city, will undertake the work of restoration [of murals in the Lee Mansion].

New cracks and partly defaced, the friezes will be retouched to approximate the original work of the colorful dabbler in literature, music and the· arts, who built and occupied the Arlington Mansion for more than half a century.

Davis, who is only 23 years old, is an instructor in art at George Washington University. He won first prize in the portrait group at the Corcoran Art Sc;hool about two years ago and since has done a number of canvases of Washington's young set.

Retouching of the murals is only a phase of the restoration work in progress at Arlington. . . . Already $110,000 has been spent to return the Mansion to its former condition.

The wall paintings that alone survive of Custis' manifold artistic creations cover three sides of the rear entrance [west] vestibule of the Mansion. They include hunting scenes, hounds, hot in pursuit, and a painting of lions fighting.

Three additional panels over. the door of the South outbuilding, one of which is believed to be the original •of Washington's famous war horse, also will be restored by Davis. These are

129. RG 92, Entry 1891, Box 67, File 600.3 badly defaced, making it necessr,r<}' for the artist to draw for the most part on his imagination.

Brigadier General Bash -apparently first learned of the letting of this contract when he read it in the newspaper.

he dashed off the following instructions quartermaster supply officer:

On the same day, March 23, to Mortimer, the depot 1

1. It is understood that you having commissioned Mr. Albert Nelson Davis, 1529 Otis Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. to restore certain paintings at Arlington Mansion, this matter must be handled very carefully to be sure of obtaining proper artistic effects. Restoration can only be entrusted to an extremely competent artist. The Commission of Fine Arts has expressed itself as not being in favor of any attempt to restore these paintings and the artist mentioned Mr. Winter, after making a careful inspection, told me that he considered it practically impossible.

2. In as much as we would seem to be committed to it, I wish you would carry out the following policy.

(1) Try out artist on two faded panels at ends of Slave Quarters. These are practically invisible and can't be hurt.

(2) Try him on White Horse Panel, Slaves Quarters.

(3) Don't let him start on murals in mansion till we see results of above. If we decide to let him go ahead, give him instructions in writing just what he is to do - only clean them.

Work to be confined to painting cracks and restoring background.

(4) Let me see the artist and his work. Let me see the instructions you give him.

3. The fact that we have already issued a purchase order is not the controlling factor. I would rather sacrifice the money if it seemed advisable than let the artist take the chance of doing something that would be fflSatisfactory and that could never be corrected in the future.

130. Copy of article in RG 92, Entry 1891, Box 67, File 600.3

131. RG 92, Entry 1891, Box 67, File 600.3. Ezra Winters, the artist on the Fine Arts Commission, lived at 15 Vanderbilt Avenue in New York City.

The murals at the west end of the main hall in Arlington House werr:e apparently never subjected to artist Albert Nelson Davis's cleanim.9.

techniques. In an article published in the Washington Evening Star; an July 5, 1931, it was stated:

Some of the murals painted in the mansion have survived the yearcs and the wear and tear during the use of the old house as a

Superintendent's office in surprising good shape. These over ff.lei west door in the main hallway [room 111] of the mansion arG�well preserved today. Cracks have occurred in places, but the paintings are intact and may be seen ...

v. Conversion of Morning Room (Room 115) to "State Dining Room•t.

Without any documentary evidence to support its suggestion, the quartermaster general's advisory committee on the restoration ofi Arlington recommended at its April 17, 1929, meeting 11that the large room [room 2 or 115] be furnished as the state dining room.11 This idea w.as accepted and approved by the quartermaster general.

Documentary evidence presented in this study suggests that room 115 was probably the Custis family parlor from 1804 to 1818 when the main house was built. By 1845 the room had not been redecorated for many years and was described as "once used as a parlor; now empty" except for a few of Custis' painting articles. The documentary evidence· further indicates that Robert E. Lee redecorated room 115 in 1855, and it was henceforth used by Mrs. Lee as her "morning room. 11 The furnishing of Room No. 115 as a "state dining room" created a room that never existed and elevated George Washington Parke Custis to an importance that he never obtained since he never gave "state dinners" during his lifetime.

w. Removal of Original Mantels The December 11, 1928, estimates included $2,200.00 to

"Rebuild fireplaces & hearth, and restore marble mantels. 11

The quartermaster general's advisory committee, at its April 17, 1929 meeting, accepted architectural historian Charles Moore's plan and recommended 11that this room [the large room in the South Wing - room 2

The walls of the second floor rooms, with the exception of those in roems -204 and 206, were painted. The walls in 206, Rhodes' parlor, were papered arid those in room 204, the northeast bedroom, were left unmushed in 1885. 238 Landscape gardener David H. Rhodes moved into his mew quarters on the second floor of the main house in the late fall of

1885 _ where he would reside until 1929 (see plan no. 17 for the hyp,othetical floor plan of the second floor in 1885). The location of the existing sewer lines from the water anti room 102 of the main house to closet in room 103 of the north wing the privy are shown on drawing no.

from Mansion, Arlington National

'I -

18-- 11 .Proposed Change in Sewer

Cemetery, Scale 101 = 1 inch. Depot Quartermaster Office, Washington, 1896. 11

=rhe Office of National Cemeteries, Quartermaster Corps, "Specifications and Estimates and Proposals for Road Construction, Earth Way.s and Buildings at National Cemeteries, 1882-1889 11

, indicates that no contracts, other than the September 15, 1885, agreement, were let for making repairs and improvements to Arlington House from 1885 to 1889. 239 b.

f,.

Exterior Painting and Murals in Main Hall, 1886 paihted Harper's Weekly, on May 29, 1886, reported, "They have the old house [Arlington House] yellow lately -- not a screaming but a soft, unobtrusive tint that is very consistent with its

Of the three paintings in the center hall, it was commented:

A remarkable hunting scene in distemper forms a sort of frieze above the doors at the [west or rear] end of the main hallway.

The dogs [in Panel C, Photo No. 3] are the leanest and the.

longest, the flying rabbit is the most apoplectic, the dying

2'-38·. RG 92, Quartermaster General Document File, 1800-1914, File No.

&�1,.60, Rhodes to Col. T. E. True, Depot QM, June 1, 1899.

239. RG 92, Entry 667, Volume I, Item No. 5. This segment has the September 3, 1855, specifications for the repair and improvment of Arlington House.

agonies of the many striped tiger (in Panel A) the most harrowingly realistic, in the whole range of post-Raphaelite art .• This is the proud handiwork of General Lee's father-in-law.

The third painting (Panel B) of the horseman and two pursuing a stag near a waterfall is not mentioned.

c. New Greenhouse with Interior Cistern Erected, 1889

In the fall of 1888 a new greenhouse, which contained

6 by 4 by 24 feet to receive rain water from the roof, was erected at -arn approximate cost of $4,684.0o.240

d. Description of Arlington House and Buildings, 1889

The superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, in dated January 9, 1889, described the cemetery buildings:

The old mansion· on the height, a large two-story building built of brick with wooden gable. It is yellow washed and contains 14 rooms. There is a greenhouse built of brick and glass 100 feet long and 30 feet wide. T�� house and stable, one story and located west of the mansion.

e. Exterior Color and Use of Rooms, 1892

On January 10, 1892, the New York Times described Arlingta11

House as 11the old yellow mansion of the Lees with its portico of, columns .... 11 Karl Decker and Angus Mcsween, in their booklet entitl'�cd1

Historic Arlington published in 1892, described the use of the rooms in

Arlington House:

Over the main [east] entrance to the building hangs a sign, Superintendent's Office, and the door on the right [north] that

240. RG 92, Entry 576, Box 132, File 166-188, Depot quartermaster, Washington Depot, to Quartermaster General, October 9, 1888. The quartermaster· authorized the expenditure of an additional $500 to build the cistern on October 16, 1888.

241. RG 92, Entry 576, Box 133. The form was dated January 9, 1889.

South Dependency, Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial

Historic Structures Report

!i

'i m JJ^Ii^SS' /*Ŵ4

Figure 2. West room, south wall. 1959, showing ghost of former late nineteenth century window opening.

Figure 3. South wall, 1959, showing different brick pat-terns within arches. The area within the box is where rows of larger blocks appear to correspond to altered surfaces.

Figure 4. West room attic, southwest comer. 2003 photo showing original joist with pegged scarfjoint and lime-washed finish.

design elements. However, when first built, the South

Dependency's woodwork color scheme was different than that of the North Dependency. Originally some of the South Dependency woodwork had a white finish flecked with quartz sand crystals meant to emulate stone—a marked contrast to the darker colors used on the North Dependency. Sometime before the 1 860s, a distinctive bed molding was applied around the open-ings and to the capitals and cornices, and a rose-tan color was applied to both dependencies, harmonizing their appearance. For a detailed idenfification of origi-nal material on the South Dependency exterior, see

Appendix E: Field Notes, sections 1 and 2 (stucco and woodwork drawings).

The three exterior door openings along the north elevation are in their original locations, though their height has been reduced since the 1850-60s. Because no nineteenth century photographs of the north eleva-tion have been located, the details of the original doors are unknown. It is likely, however, that the doors (and cornices above) were similar to the North Dependen-cy's six panel doors seen in the Civil War era photos.

George Washington Parke Custis reportedly painted the stucco panels above the north elevation doors. The framed panels above both the east and west door open-ings featured spread eagles, while that in the center featured a white horse. By the twentieth century, these paintings were severely deteriorated and "practically invisible."

Areas of the south elevation corresponding with the east and west rooms appear always to have had win-dow openings set within the recessed arches. The horizontal openings present today existed in the 1860s.

During the 1959 restoration, NPS architects working in Sclina's room identified the ghost line of an infilled vertically-oriented window opening beneath the plas-ter (Figure 2). On the exterior, rows of larger brick or block appear to correspond with the altered surfaces on the interior (Figure 3). The fonner large window opening post dated the 1860s.

The south elevation center bay was constructed with a niche featuring a pair of wooden louxered vents flank-

26 Chronology ofDevelopment and Use

South Dependency, Ar/ini^lon House. The Robert E. Lee Memorial chimneys. Another recommendation included "relaying the old brick floors at their original levels," opening up interior doors, making general repairs, and furnishing all missing hardware of old pat-terns approved by the Quartermaster Coips, and restoring the painted panels above the doors on the south elevation. Again, the QMC urged that the work be undertaken with a sensitivity to the re-source. "Your particular attention is directed to the necessity of taking effective means to insure that all of the work herein described is a 'restoration.' Every effort must be made to insure that any new work, such as the reflooring or wall finish, has an antique appearance so as to perfectly match the 4U balance of the house. The success of the job will depend on the new work being indistinguishable."

Actual work on the South Dependency appears to have begun sometime in September or October

1929. Early in the project. Colonel Bash wrote to Charle Moore, Fine Arts Commission Chairman, seeking advice on whether to restore the panels above the doors on the south elevation. ' According to Bash, the paintings (a spread eagle over the east and west doors and a white horse abo\ e the cen-ter room all reportedly done by G.W.P. Custis) were still visible, "although much faded and weath-erworn." Moore quickly responded with a recommendation that the panels be painted.

In December 1929, Colonel Bash wrote that a decision had been made to remove the modem plas-tered ceilings in the east and west rooms. In the west room, an attic floor would be reinstalled sup-ported on round oak timbers and reachable by a steep, inclined ladder with flat treads and risers in the southwest comer. In contrast there would be no attic in the east room. The ceiling rafters were to be exposed with old tie beams remaining and "latter added tie beams removed." This work required relocation of the new fire detection tubing system which had already been installed along the exist-ing plaster ceiling.

In April 1 930, Bash wrote a memo attaching the cost of $1,500.00 to the work to be done in the

South Dependency and the summer kitchen. Five hundred dollars was to be spent on guard grating for both buildings. Some of this steel grating would be installed on the doorways of the South

Dependency. During opening hours, when the wood doors were left open, the grates would allow visitors to see, but not enter, into the rooms. By November 1930, the grates were still not in place and the South Dependency had yet to be furnished.'

During the winter of 1930-3 1, the QMC retumed to the question of how to treat the painted panels above the doors. They were "faded" and "practically invisible;" their restoration considered "prac-tically impossible." Against the wishes of the Fine Arts Commission, which hoped to avert any attempt to restore the works, a young portrait painter from Washington, DC, Albert Nelson Davis, was hired to try to clean, paint cracks, and restore the background of the paintings. If his work was deemed acceptable, he would be promoted to work on Custis' murals in the Mansion hall." Before

Davis set to work, a March 1931 newspaper article claimed that the paintings were "badly defaced.

making it necessary for the artist to draw for the most part on his imagination."' There is no con-firmation that Davis completed work on the panels. Photographs taken in 1957. howe\er. show the elements in the paintings with much greater prominence, a result of either Da\is" work or the work of a later NPS painter.

There are conflicting reports about w hen the w ork on the dependencies was completed. March and September 1931 Quarterly Reports state that "Remodeling of mansion and outbuildings [was] in progress." It appears that the outbuildings may haxe been completed by December when only

44 Chronology' ofDevelopment and Use

South Dependency, Arlington House. The Robert E. Lee Memorial ter General." Leisenring "very generously spent an hour or more telling me what he had done, and the basis for his plans for the restoration and improvement at Arlington. It seems that no thorough or complete study of or search for full historical data on Arlington has been made. Leisenring has studied the problem, has gathered the available data, and as a result of his studies and his thoughts on the problem has drawn up plans. In my opinion before having had a chance to go into the matter with any degree of thoroughness, Leisenring has worked with considerable feeling toward a faithful and appropriate treatment of his problem."

1934-1956

By 1936, the National Park Service had begun its own series of repairs to the South Dependency.

An inspection that year noted that there was "quite a bit of pointing up that should be done around the doors of the old slave quarters ..." The following year, minor repairs were made to the South

Dependency roof, though their nature and extent were not specified. Also in 1937, Herman Van

Cott, an NPS artist from the museum division, "retouched" the three paintings above the doors of the south building. A monthly report mentioned that "the work was carefully done so that the antique ap-pearance of the painting might be preserved." It is unknown whether Van Cott was repairing work done by Andrew Davis, the painter hired by the QMC in 193 1 , or was doing work that was intended for Davis but never undertaken during the QMC restoration.

A photograph of the northwest comer of the South Dependency, taken from the road behind Arling-ton looking southeast, shows the buildings appearance in 1938 (Figure 24). It had two chimneys, metal wire grates in front of the open doors, limited ivy coverage on north elevation, and a stucco finish on the stone founda-tion. Most mterestnig, the - jt.^---*^ lower three feet of the north elevation brick wall, directly above the foundation is missing the rough cast fin-ish. This condition suggests either that the restoration did not include work on the rough cast exterior finish and that the spalled finish is a result of many years of rising damp and wear, or that the rising damp was so severe that Just seven years after the restoration was complete, the finish had already failed in these areas.

Around the same period, an assistant chief of the Horticulture and Maintenance Division voiced concern about the profusion of vines on the facade. "Both the wisteria and trumpet \ ine have been allowed to grow up between the hanging gutter and the shingle and because the gutter was the onl\ support for the vines, all the trimming had been done above it. This has created large tenninal knots that are destructive to the gutter and shingles and has made it impossible to eliminate tlie heavy work

Figure 24, 1938 pluitograph ot"nonhv\cst corner of the South Dependency.

48 Chronology' ofDevelopment and Use from the walls or really "train the vines." The gardener suggested that eyelets be placed at five foot by five foot intervals along the wall and copper wire threaded through the eyelets to form a support frame for the vines. Evidence of such eyelets still exists on the building.

1957-1964

Never content with the QMC restoration of 1927-32, the NPS undertook their own program of res-toration beginning in 1957. Starting in August of that year, they began to compile historical infor-mation on the South Dependency and draw up a list of tasks that would be included in the project.

Though activity at the North Dependency invoh cd major restoration and reinterpretation, the aim of work on the south building was directed more toward repair and maintenance. A weekly inspection report from August 28, 1957 noted that:

The slaves quarters are in need of repair of soffit of cornice caused by allowing ivy to grow into roof. All ivy should be cut away from wood at least 6" and also prevented from grow ing into stone. The wood replaced is to be treated with 5% pentacholorphenol Inspection of ends of rafters is imperative. The entire brick and stone work is in need of pointing up as the pebble dash cement finish of 37 years ago is no longer protected and should be removed and a new surface to match the mansion applied. The entire south wall should be pointed up and restored first and this would help to detemiine original condition. The fireplace in the west end is in need of repair and others should be investigated.

The following month, "Report No. 2" noted that "documentary, pictographic, and archeologicaf evi-dence was being gathered to aid in the restoration. It also remarked that the condition of the servant quarters (the South Dependency) gave it priority over the North Dependency. By the time the report was submitted, measured drawings had been made of the South Dependency, ivy had been removed from the fa9ade, and samples of exterior plaster had been submitted to the FBI for material and color analysis. Photos, letters, descriptions, and personal reminiscences were assembled for reference, and an appointment was made to again interview L.M. Leisenring about the QMC restoration. The work plan specified in the report called for:

All rotted woodwork on exterior to be replaced with good seasoned timber of same kind, if possible. Replace outlookers where needed and restore soffit

2) Exterior wall should be repointed, deteriorated brick replaced with good old Arlington brick stored at the Mansion. The rough cast stucco which shows in Brady photographs should be matched and replaced where necessary.

3) Plaster over stone foundation should be removed and the stonework repointed. No plaster covered this foundation at time of Lee occupancy.

4) Roof leaks should be checked and repaired. Slate roof is historically accurate.

5) Window sashes should be repaired and if necessary window panes, which are badly bro-ken, replaced with old glass

6) Air leaks around roof should be repaired

7) Six, six panel doors, identical with those shown in Brady photograph archive (CN - 969) should be found and replaced at the servant quarter doors. Present doors are historically inaccurate and should be removed. Proper hardware for doors should be located. The door frames examined to establish the side from which doors were originally hinged.

8) Steps in east and west rooms should be repaired.

9) Fireplaces in east and west rooms should be repaired and placed in operating condition.

Chronology ofDevelopment and Use 49

South Dependency, Arliiii^lon House. The Robert E. Lee Memorial

Hisluric Structures Report

10) Heat and humidity control should be installed so as not to detract from the original apear ance of the structure, and still guarantee protection of valuable exhibit specimens and people.

Paintings over the quarter doors should be examined and treated by an expert to guarantee the preservation

12) Wood and plaster samples from interior should be studied to establish original finish on interior. Wood from outside should be examined to establish original color. Brady photos indicate possibility of a color other than white.

13) Kach room should be carefully examined to establish any evidence of structural change.

Shelf lines may be located in the store room. Evidence of smoke should be found in smoke house. Examination of paint and plaster finishes as well as brick and bond should help estab lish when doors were cut and blocked between the center room and two end rooms. This archeological investigation can be completed while exterior work continues.

14) When work is completed documentary, pictographic, and archeological evidence will be combined and placed in the repair and restoration log at the mansion.

15) Interior walls should be returned as nearly as possible to their appearance in 1 861."'

This…