1

THE SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM THAT NEVER WAS: 

WERE THERE REALLY PLANNED MUSEUMS THAT THE SMITHSONIAN 

DID NOT BUILD?

At times it feels as if the Smithsonian is in a perpetual state of building a new 

museum and has never turned down the idea of a new museum. As one building is completed, another is being planned. Although the process is usually a 

long one, the outcome is certain – once legislated or donated, the museum 

will come into existence. Or will it? The following are four case studies of 

museums that almost but never came to be at the Smithsonian. 

A MODERN MUSEUM OF ART: THE SAARINEN DESIGN

Although the Smithsonian’s 

enabling act provided for a 

gallery of art, a national art 

museum was not a priority 

in the early decades of the 

Smithsonian. The earliest 

art collections were largely 

destroyed in the 1865 fire 

in the Castle. Secretary Joseph Henry, who thought 

art attracted “idlers,” sent 

the remaining art works to 

the Library of Congress and 

Corcoran Gallery of Art later 

that year. Some new art was 

acquired under the second 

Secretary, Spencer Baird, but 

the first real impetus for an 

art gallery did not come until 

1903 when Mrs. Harriet Lane 

Johnston, James Buchanan’s 

niece, bequeathed her art 

collection to the Corcoran 

Gallery of Art, with the stipulation that if a gallery of art 

should ever be established 

by the United States GovernHarriet Lane Johnson Collection on display in the U.S. National Museum 

(now the National Museum of Natural History) in 1952

ment, the paintings would be 

turned over to it. 

The Corcoran Gallery of Art 

declined the bequest under 

these terms, and the collections were subsequently designated and established as the 

National Gallery of Art under 

the Smithsonian Institution. 

President Theodore Roosevelt strongly encouraged the 

Smithsonian Board of Regents 

to pursue the collection and 

the third Secretary, Samuel 

Langley, a Boston aesthete, 

concurred. In the 1906 case, 

D.K. Este Fisher, et al, vs. 

Harriet Lane Home for Invalid 

Children of Baltimore City, 
2

et al, Judge Ashley M. Gould, 

Justice, Supreme Court of the 

District of Columbia, ruled 

that the bequest of Harriet 

Lane Johnston of pictures, 

miniatures, and other articles 

to a “national gallery of art,” 

were to go to the Smithsonian Institution, which for the 

purposes of receiving the 

bequest was adjudged to be 

the National Gallery of Art. 

The Harriet Lane Johnston 

collection was then delivered 

to the Smithsonian Institution as the beginnings of a 

National Gallery of Art under 

the Institution’s aegis. The collection consisted of 31 pieces 

comprised of several interesting historical objects as well 

as works of art. The collection 

formed the basis for what is 

now the Smithsonian American Art Museum. 

At first the works were displayed in the Arts and Industries Building, but soon after 

moved to the new National 

Museum Building (now Natural History) when it opened 

in 1910. The collection was 

administered by the multi-talented William Henry Holmes, 

an artist, geologist, and anthropologist who also chaired 

the Museum’s Department of 

Anthropology. Holmes longed 

for a building designated solely for the collection. In 1937, 

with Andrew Mellon’s gift of 

his art collection to the nation 

(and therefore to the Smithsonian) in the planning stages, 

Holmes commissioned a 

design for a stunning modern 

museum building on the Mall, 

designed by the noted architect Eero Saarinen. However, 

at the 12th hour and to the 

dismay of Secretary Charles 

Abbot and Dr. Holmes, Mellon 

changed his mind and insisted 

that his collection go in a separate museum in a classical 

building that was not part of 

the Smithsonian. Construction 

of Mellon’s museum building, 

which opened in 1941, consumed all available funds as 

the nation struggled through 

the Great Depression and Saarinen’s dream museum never 

became a reality.

Eventually, in 1967, the “National Collection of Fine Arts” 

moved to the old Patent Office Building, which it shares 

with the National Portrait 

Gallery today.

Model of Eero Saarinen’s design for a National Gallery of Art at the 

Smithsonian, 1939

The Smithsonian American Art Museum, along with the National 

Portrait Gallery, now resides in the Reynolds Center for American Art 

and Portraiture
3

Amethyst Easter Rabbit

In the 1950s, Marjorie Merriweather Post, then the 

wealthiest woman in the 

world, maintained a correspondence with Frank 

Setzler of the Department 

of Anthropology in the U.S. 

National Museum. Mrs. Post 

was a collector of Americana, 

including Native American 

materials, many of which 

could be seen in her Camp 

Topridge on Upper St. Regis Lake in the Adirondacks. 

Operated as a “rustic retreat,” 

it eventually consisted of over 

70 buildings on 300 acres, 

with a fully staffed main lodge 

and private guest cabins. Mrs. 

Post also donated a number 

of items from her gem collection to the National Museum’s 

mineral collection, including 

the Napoleon Necklace and 

the Marie Louise Diadem (a 

275 ct. [55g] diamond-andturquoise necklace and tiara 

set that Napoleon I gave to his 

second wife, Empress Marie 

Louise); a pair of diamond 

earrings set with pear shapes, 

weighing 14 ct.(2.8g) and 20 

ct. (4g), once belonging to 

Marie Antoinette; a 30.82 ct. 

(6.164g) blue-heart diamond 

ring known as the Blue Heart 

Diamond; and an emeraldand-diamond necklace and 

ring, once belonging to Mexican emperor Maximilian. 

Secretary Leonard Carmichael 

(1952–1964) opened discussions with Mrs. Post about 

the disposition of her estate 

Hillwood, located in northwest Washington, D.C., and 

its unique collections. During 

her marriage to Joseph Davies 

from 1935 to 1955, they spent 

THE HILLWOOD MUSEUM AND GARDENS

two years (1837–1938) in the 

Soviet Union while he served 

as U.S. Ambassador. Mrs. Post 

collected a great deal of 18th 

and 19th century Imperial 

Russian art, as well as Sevres 

porcelain, and numerous 

items created by Faberge, the 

jeweler for the Czars. In May 

of 1961, Mrs. Post hosted 

the Board of Regents so they 

could view the estate and collections that she was considering donating to the Smithsonian. The Regents had mixed 

reactions—some seeing it as 

the jewel in the Smithsonian’s crown, others concerned 

about an institution dedicated 

to the broader public overstepping its mission by administering so opulent an estate. 

In 1962, Mrs. Post and the 

Smithsonian agreed in principle and announced that she 

would donate Hillwood to the 

Smithsonian to be operated 

as a separate museum, with 

a $10 million endowment. In 

Hillwood Museum, front view
4

was concerned over the balance of power between the 

Regents and the Marjorie 

Merriweather Post Foundation of D.C. on such issues as 

appointing the Hillwood director and managing the bequest 

for museum maintenance. 

Thus the Smithsonian was 

concerned about 1) who had 

control over decision-making 

about the collections and 

management of the museum; 

2) who had control over decision-making about the monetary bequest; and 3) devoting 

the Smithsonian’s resources 

to a museum that memorialized a single wealthy individual. By the time Mrs. Post died 

in 1973, the United States was 

in the midst of great social 

and cultural change, as well 

as inflation and an economic 

downturn. The value of Mrs. 

Post endowment had dropped 

1967, she presented terms of 

her eventual bequest to the 

new Secretary S. Dillon Ripley 

(1964–1984) and in January 

of 1969, after two years of 

negotiation, Hillwood was 

deeded to the stewardship of 

the Smithsonian Institution. 

From the outset, however, 

Secretary Ripley shared some 

of the Regents’ concerns 

about the terms of the bequest—terms that echoed 

the Freer and Isabella Stewart 

Gardner museums in their 

restrictions, with provisions 

that limited what artworks 

could be added or disposed of 

and how objects were to be 

displayed, among others. Mrs. 

Post stipulated that the house 

be maintained substantially 

as she had kept it during her 

lifetime, for example, with 

fresh flowers changed daily 

throughout the estate. Ripley contested such terms as 

a prohibition against loaning 

items to other museums or 

displaying items other than 

Mrs. Post’s at Hillwood. He 

Portrait of Catherine the Great

significantly and estimated 

costs for operating the museum had increased substantially. Secretary Ripley was 

more interested in his new 

Festival of American Folklife 

and Anacostia Neighborhood 

Museum than a restrictive 

memorial to Mrs. Post. The 

Post Foundation would not 

provide additional funding for 

Hillwood, despite Mrs. Post’s 

strictures that it should have 

first call on the foundation. 

At the January 22, 1976, 

meeting of the Board of Regents, they voted to transfer 

the Hillwood estate and collections to the Marjorie Merriweather Post Foundation, in 

accordance with Article 9A of 

her last will and testament. 

On July 1, 1976, the Smithsonian Institution formally 

returned the Hillwood gift to 

the Post Foundation. 

Hillwood Museum, rear view of Lunar Lawn
5

The French had opened 

the Musée de l’Homme in 

1937 and it had served as 

a model for the recently 

opened Museo Nacional de 

Antropologia in Mexico City, 

built in 1964. The Canadians 

were also planning a central 

Museum of Civilization that 

opened in Quebec in 1989. 

The Smithsonian’s exhibits of 

non-western cultures looked 

outmoded and anachronistic 

During the 1960s and 1970s, a significant effort was made to 

build a National Museum of Man at the Smithsonian, to present the world’s varied cultures together in one building. Led by 

Secretary Ripley and anthropologists at the Smithsonian’s Bureau of American Ethnology and Department of Anthropology 

at the National Museum of Natural History, the new museum 

had several goals. 

The first was to remove the study and display of non-western 

cultures from a natural history museum and place their study 

on par with the study of western cultures. In a post-colonial 

world, the presentation of Native Americans, Africans, Asians, 

and other non-western cultures alongside animals and plants 

seemed to reflect a value judgment about their role in the 

world. 

THE MUSEUM OF MAN

There was also concern about 

the rapid disappearance of 

cultures in the face of industrialization and globalization. 

The new museum would 

capture the universalist view 

of the human race found 

in Edward Steichen’s 1955 

exhibit and book, The Family 

of Man.

Hupa Indians of California exhibit, c. 1958

National Museum of Natural History, 1965
6

Canadian Museum of Civilization, Quebec

in comparison to other nations. Ripley tried to galvanize 

interest within and outside 

the Institution for the creation 

of a great Museum of Man for 

the United States that would 

present the full panoply of human cultures, comparing and 

contrasting them. The Smithsonian was also focusing more 

energy on “urgent anthropology” to document rapidly 

vanishing cultures, responding 

to concerns of the American 

Anthropological Association 

and the effects of industrialization and globalization. The 

Bureau of American Ethnology was disbanded in 1964 and 

merged into the Museum’s 

Department of Anthropology, 

creating the Center for the 

Study of Man. Ripley hired 

noted anthropologist Sol Tax 

of the University of Chicago 

to lead this effort. Enthusiasm 

for the idea was mixed within 

the Institution, with many of 

the anthropologists preferring 

the status quo and believing 

that they had greater status 

as scientists when they were 

located within a natural history museum, rather than a 

cultural history museum. 

Significant efforts were devoted to planning a Museum 

of Man on the National Mall, 

but the U.S. Congress consistently rejected the idea. The 

Institution had grown too 

rapidly under Secretary Ripley 

—opening NASM, the Anacostia, Cooper-Hewitt, Hirshhorn, 

Museum of African Art, Renwick, and Sackler Galleries, 

among others. The Congress 

responded that the Institution 

could not expand any further. 

Ripley countered that the 

Institution needed to build a 

museum of man to avoid the 

creation of a wide array of 

museums devoted to various 

cultural groups. The Museum 

of the American Indian in 

New York was in crisis, and it 

had been suggested that the 

Smithsonian take it over. 

Ripley resisted, holding out 

for a single museum to 

represent all cultures comparatively, rather than to 

begin a series of specialized 

museums. But the Congress 

was never convinced. In frustration, Ripley renamed the 

National Museum of Natural 

History as the National Museum of Natural History/National Museum of Man, to assure 

visitors that the museum did 

not consider only some parts 

of human culture to be part 

of the natural world. For years 

the signs in front of the museum contained both titles. 

Looking back, Secretary Ripley 

considered the lack of a Museum of Man to be his greatest failure, and his prediction 

of a series of smaller, specialized museums has, indeed, 

come to pass.
7

NATIONAL ARMED FORCES MUSEUM

In January of 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed 

a committee of citizens and public servants to explore the 

possibility of establishing a U.S. Armed Forces Museum. Such 

a museum had been suggested at the Smithsonian since the 

19th century, but it had never come to pass. The then-named 

Museum of History and Technology had a division and exhibits 

devoted to military history and preferred to keep the subject 

in the context of a broad look at American history. Its exhibits 

such lands and buildings. On 

January 12, 1965, the National Armed Forces Museum 

Advisory Board (NAFMAB) 

recommended to the Board 

of Regents that a National 

Armed Forces Museum be 

created by the Smithsonian 

Institution. On January 28, 

1965, the Board of Regents 

approved recommendations 

for the establishment of the 

Museum, to be situated on 

a 340-acre tract bordering 

the Potomac River in nearby 

Fort Washington, Maryland. 

A director, Colonel John H. 

Magruder III, was appointed; 

he had previously directed the 

Marine Corps Museum. He 

struggled to move plans for 

the museum forward until his 

sudden drowning off the coast 

of Massachusetts in 1972. 

A succession of Smithsonian administrators were then 

given the job as a second 

duty, but none had their heart 

in it. In her dissertation on the 

topic, historian Joanne Gernstein London demonstrates 

that the museum was never a 

high priority for the military, 

so they never lobbied the 

Congress for its passage. In 

addition to the demands of 

the Korean War and the impending Vietnam War, plans 

for expensive new weapons 

systems, and dreams of a new 

stadium for the naval academy, all took precedence over 

the military museum. The 

of military uniforms, arms and equipment were popular destinations. But in a Cold War environment and in an era that 

sought to celebrate the “Greatest Generation” that had fought 

in World War II, the idea of a military museum moved rapidly 

towards reality. 

In August of 1961, Public Law 87-186 established the National 

Armed Forces Museum Advisory Board to assist and advise the 

Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents on matters concerning the portrayal of the contributions that the United States 

Armed Forces have made to American society and culture, the 

investigation of lands and buildings in and near the District of 

Columbia suitable for the museum, and the preparation of a 

recommendation to Congress with respect to the acquisition of 

Military Exhibit, Arts and Industries Building
8

path between authorization 

and appropriation can be a 

very long one, and the military community never lobbied 

the Congress for funding for 

an actual building and museum staff. 

Dr. London traced the several 

factors that led the effort to 

fail. The Smithsonian itself 

was never enthusiastic about 

building a separate military 

museum. Most of the military 

history curators preferred to 

maintain exhibits within the 

larger Museum of American History. Magruder was 

not able to galvanize forces 

in support of the museum. 

Administrators such as Secretaries Leonard Carmichael 

and S. Dillon Ripley were far 

more concerned with building 

a new building for the American history collections and 

the American art collections, 

a National Portrait Gallery 

and numerous other art and 

cultural efforts.

By 1973 prospects for building a National Armed Forces 

Museum had dimmed considerably, and the Smithsonian 

moved to establish the Eisenhower Institute for Historical 

Research within the National 

Museum of History and Technology (NMHT). 

The noted military historian 

Forrest C. Pogue was named 

Director of the Institute, under the broad supervision of 

the NMHT Director in cooperation with NAFMAB. The 

activities of the Institute inForrest C. Pogue

Costumed visitors in the National Museum of American History, 1983

cluded research, publications, 

lectures, and conferences 

concerning the contributions 

of the armed forces to American society and culture. In 

its first full year of operation, 

1975, the Eisenhower Institute reported to the Department of National and Military 

History, but in 1976 the Institute assumed separate status 

under the Director. 

In 1979, James S. Hutchins, 

past Director of NAFMAB, 

joined Pogue as Historian. By 

1984, Hutchins had moved to 

the Division of Armed Forces 

History, where he remained 

as Historian. Pogue retired at 

the end of 1984. The remaining staff members were 

reassigned; the Eisenhower 

Institute, never a priority of 

Smithsonian management, 

became inactive.
9

THE MUSEUMS THAT NEVER WERE

As history shows us, the donation of a museum or legislation for a museum does not guarantee that it will come into existence as part of the Smithsonian. Congressional authorization 

does not a museum make without the will and resources for it to happen. The wings on the 

Natural History Building were authorized and designed in the 1930s, but not built until the 

1960s. Many factors can prevent the dream from becoming a reality—restrictions on gifts, 

the appropriateness of the collection/museum as part of the Smithsonian, patience and 

strong management during the planning process, staff support for the project, sufficient 

Federal and private funding, and strong support in both the Congress and community for 

this effort. In some cases, lack of enthusiasm at the Smithsonian can sink a project—

although the lack of Smithsonian enthusiasm for the National Air and Space Museum was 

reversed by Congressional Pressure. Sometimes Congress rejects the project—although 

Smithsonian administrators persisted for 25 years to get the Natural History Building. Sometimes gifts are too restrictive—experience with the Freer Gallery and changes in museum 

standards ensured that donors must be willing to cede control of their collection to the 

Smithsonian’s expertise and typical practices. The collection must be appropriate for the 

national museum; it must be malleable enough to attract a broad audience. Lack of funding, 

both Federal and private, is often the major stumbling block. Hillwood might have stayed 

at the Smithsonian if the Post Foundation would have underwritten all costs. The Saarinen 

building could have been built were the nation not in the midst of the Great Depression. The 

Armed Forces Museum never got the Federal funding necessary to make it a reality and Congress never supported the idea of funding a museum of man. Each Smithsonian museum’s 

success—or failure—is a complex interplay of these forces: funding, strong advocacy, current 

cultural values, flexibility, and appropriateness for a national museum.

Pamela Henson

Institutional History Division

Smithsonian Institution Archives