An edited version of this article appeared in the Spring 2004 edition of “The Florida Patriot” Magazine

Who Was the Real Benedict Arnold

by Ben DuBose, Brevard Chapter, Florida Society, Sons of the American Revolution

About the author: Ben DuBose authored two award winning publications on the Revolutionary War in New York City; has had historical articles published in the NY DAILY NEWS & NY TIMES: authored a weekly historical column in various Brooklyn newspapers for over 10 years and was appointed by two Mayors as an official historian for NYC.

Shakespeare wrote: “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones.” And so it was with Benedict Arnold.

That is, until about the turn of the 20th Century when historical apologists decided to dig up his bones – hoping to find some good in them. The result is a skewed version of history. One that uses actual events to create a scenario that not only praises him, but also attributes his last and worst crimes to an assortment of outside pressures. The problem is they totally ignored the man and his lifetime of misdeeds.

Earlier this year a cable TV company came out with a documentary on Benedict Arnold and decided to use local libraries to get some cheap publicity. They offered prizes for the best presentations, assuming libraries would bring in a viewing audience through grass roots advertising. Thus, as the past president of the Brevard Chapter of the SAR, and their guest speaker on other occasions, I was contacted to do a talk. I agreed, thinking I had enough general knowledge to put a talk together within the two-week time period allotted. Like most historians, I assumed Arnold to be a brave and true patriot who was disappointed and disgruntled because he was passed over for promotions and not given the credit he felt he deserved. As my research began for this talk, I picked through books in my personal library that I haven’t read in decades (mostly older books published in the 1800’s). A new picture of Benedict Arnold emerged, a picture of neither a patriot nor a traitor, but rather of a psychologically disturbed and very angry person who was consumed by his egotistical needs- needs which forced him to become an over achiever, needs which made him take advantage of any person, situation or cause – no matter what the future ramifications might be – as long as it satisfied him.

These historical revisionists concentrated on his deeds of bravery and what he had done for his country on the battlefield. There is no question about it – Benedict Arnold was a “brave man.” But, it was the kind of bravery that is born out of a desperate reckless urge to draw recognition from others, or to intimidate others – friends and foe alike. This type of bravery, without merit or cause, is nothing more than outbursts of anger, reactions to fear, or a way of getting attention. You will see that Arnold fought not for the cause of freedom, but rather for personal riches, power, extraordinary praise, and the calculation of future gain and advancement – all selfish needs.

Arnold just happened to be at the right place at the right time- a time when this type of irrational personality could be interpreted as “Revolutionary leadership.” Plus, he had incredible luck; was an above average battle strategist; and he had the ability to write a great letter. Also, truthfulness was not one of his many talents.

I was amazed by what is written about his childhood. An old biography starts out by telling us that he was born in Norwich, Connecticut on January 3rd 1740. He was a descendent of another Benedict Arnold, one of the early governors of Rhode Island. His mother, according to her epitaph, was “A pattern of patience, piety, and virtue.” It goes on to say, “He was a wayward, disobedient and unscrupulous boy; cruel in his traits and wicked in his practices.” (1) A footnote describes that, “While yet a mere youth he attempted murder.” Young Arnold hated his sister’s boyfriend so much that he threatened to kill him if he ever returned. Shortly thereafter he shot the young man as he tried to escape out of a window.

His boyhood is discussed at length in another old reference work. It relates that one of his earliest amusements was to rob eggs from bird’s nests, and he loved to maim and mangle young birds in full sight of the older birds – just to hear their cries. He would put broken glass along the path from school so that the younger children would cut their feet. He also liked to sprinkle brightly colored glass at the doorway of the drug store where he worked – to attract the attention of youngsters. Then, as they were busy collecting the colorful tid-bits Arnold would run out of the shop with a horsewhip – calling them thieves – and beat them without pity. (2)

His misdirected bravery also showed itself during his youth, for he would often display rash feats of daring-do. One of his favorite amusements – which he did to astonish the other children – was to hang onto the arms of a large water-wheel at the grist-mill and go round-and-round as it plunged him into the water and out again. (2)

At fifteen he ran away from home and joined the provincial troops to fight in the war with France along the Canadian border. His adventures in upstate New York played an important role during the Canadian Campaign. He soon deserted and entered the smuggling trade with the West Indies. He served as a skipper, commanding a small schooner out of New London. To relieve the monotony after long days at sea he engaged in duels and brawls, mostly with Frenchmen who were considered our enemy. This sailing experience also comes into play during his days at Lake Champlain.

As the Revolution neared, we needed the likes of Arnold as much as the wisdom of Washington, and the shrewdness of Franklin. Yes! We needed the boasting, irregular, adventurous energy of men like Arnold to stir the hearts of other adventurers. No sooner had the musket-shots at Concord and Lexington echoed through New England, Arnold was in the field, mustering a company that was ready to march anywhere a good fight could be found. And that fight would most likely occur at Boston.

When he arrived in Boston it was already obvious that we lacked the artillery needed to fight the British. Several of those who had fought in the war with France, Arnold included, recalled that Fort Ticonderoga was filled with cannon, and it was ripe for the picking. It was Arnold who presented this proposal to The Massachusetts Committee for Safety.

“The Colony of Massachusetts voted a considerable sum and Colonel Benedict Arnold was authorized to raise a force and seize the fort. About the same time, however, Ethan Allan, leader of a body of irregular troops known as the Green Mountain Boys, also conceived the idea. Allan and Arnold met in Castleton, Vermont, and both claimed the command. The Green Mountain Boys refused to serve under anyone but Allen. Eventually a compromise was made and a joint command agreed on.” (3) These funds will be discussed later.

The facts are that Allen’s forces had grown to about 300 along the way, while Arnold’s forces consisted of himself and but a small handful of aides. Actually, Arnold had no other choice, for he had gathered no forces to side with him. Yet, in Arnold’s letter to the Committee explaining why he allowed Allen to lead the attack he lied saying: “not thinking proper to await the arrival of the troops I had engaged on the road.” (4)

Let’s be realistic, during those times leaders did not engage troops and move on. They amassed their forces along the way, moving forward with them to build more support. And there is no record of any of these forces ever arriving.

According to documents it was Allen’s forces that took the first fort and he was responsible for its almost bloodless surrender. Yet, Arnold included in that same letter the following seeds of discontent: “Colonel Allen is a proper man to head his own wild people, but entirely unacquainted with military service; and as I am the only person who has been legally authorized to take possession of this place, I am determined to insist on my right, and I think it is my duty to remain here against all opposition until I have further orders. But, as I have been the first person who entered and took possession of the fort, I shall keep it until I have further advice and orders from you.” (4)

Again, according to written document, Allen also had official orders to take the fort, and reports written by a British officer prove Allen was the first one in to claim the Fort – not Arnold. This first-hand report states that after Allen insisted on surrender: “Mr. Arnold begg’d it in a genteel manner.” (5) But it was Arnold’s report that reached General Washington in Boston. And Washington was so impressed he promoted Arnold to the position of Colonel in the Continental Army.

Washington’s first order for Arnold was to raise a force of men, proceed to Quebec, and join forces with General Montgomery who was moving north from Montreal. With the assistance of a young Aaron Burr and Daniel Morgan, they raised an army of about one-thousand men and marched them almost six hundred miles in about eight-weeks – only to find they had arrived weeks before General Montgomery who was to lead the assault.

Once again, Arnold impressed Washington; and to read Arnold’s reports concerning this event, one would think he did it single handedly. During the Battle of Quebec everything that could go wrong did. “With enlistments of about half their men expiring by the new year, Arnold and Montgomery undertook a desperate assault on the city during the night of December 30 in the middle of a raging blizzard. The Americans were outnumbered by the defenders, and the attack was a failure. Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded.” (6) Plus, Arnold was given Montgomery’s command and the rank of Brigadier-General.

In a letter written to his sister Hanna on January 6, just days after the Siege of Quebec Arnold relates in true bravado: “I received a wound by a ball through my left leg, which, by the loss of blood, rendered me very weak. As soon as the main body came up, with some assistance I returned to the hospital near a mile on foot, being obligated to draw one leg after me, and a great deal of the way under continual fire of the enemy…My wound has been exceedingly painful…I am doing my duty and know no fear.” (7)

With the collapse of the Canadian campaign, the American flank was wide open to counterattack. And if General Carleton had been ready, and if Arnold had not been put in charge of a sham naval operation on Lake Champlain, Carleton might have destroyed the American Forces along our northern border. The British could then have sailed down the Hudson River and joined forces with Howe in New York, thus separating the rebellion north and south.

What Arnold saw, as his chance to destroy the Royal Navy, and gain recognition and respect appeared to be a good plan by many of his superiors.

So, while Generals Schuyler and Gates “recruited,” they let Arnold pursue his mad, impossible plan…to build an American fleet and sail against Carleton. Shipwrights and sawyers, sailcloth and naval supplies were requisitioned from New England. Axemen felled trees on the lake shore, and green timbers were hewn into ships – two schooners, two sloops, four galleys, and eight gondolas. Cannon were mounted on the unpainted decks and the unseaworthy craft were manned by soldiers.” (8)

Arnold - in a whirlwind of energy, letter writing and resourcefulness - brought together a small navy by the first week in October, just a few days ahead of Carleton’s fleet. But all was not as organized as reported by Arnold, or as most modern-day historians like to tell it. In a letter from John Trumbull to his father, the Governor of Connecticut, written on July 12, 1776, he comments: “I found not an Army but a mob, the shattered remains of twelve or fifteen very fine battalions, ruined by sickness, fatigue and desertions and void of any ideas of discipline…We have carpenters, shipbuilders and mechanics in plenty, but neither place for them to work in – nor materials in plenty.” (9) – He goes on to describe the small navy Arnold was hastily putting together, and there was no real hope of victory.

The Battle of Valcour Island, occurred on Oct. 11-13. As expected, Carleton’s superior force swept Arnold’s small navy off the lake. But, luckily for Arnold his grab for recognition came in another form. His naval challenge to Carleton forced the British to lose over a month in preparation for that battle, and that month was decisive. The English were not prepared for a winter campaign. Yes, they did march to Fort Ticonderoga – just a show of force – but turned around and returned to Canada before a shot was fired.

Once again Washington received only the good news and saw Arnold as a huge asset to his command.

At the battle of Ridgefield, Connecticut, on April 25, 1777, Arnold’s horse was killed from under him, having been hit by nine bullets, and it fell atop his leg thus causing another tragic wound in battle. According to the official records of the time he was given his promotion to major-general for his gallantry in action.

That promotion is the one that undermines the theory put forth by historical revisionists. Author Christopher Ward describes an event that occurred one month before the battle of Ridgefield. “In New Haven, Brigadier General Benedict Arnold, the Achilles of the American army, was sulking in his tent… Despite his brilliant services in the war, five brigadiers, all junior to him in rank and one a mere militia general, had been made major generals, while he was unnoticed. Astonished and indignant at the slight put upon him by an ungrateful Congress, he wrote to Washington saying he intended to resign the service. Washington urged him ‘not to take any hasty steps.’” (10) As we can see, one month later he did receive the promotion he was looking for. So, that old excuse, about not being promoted does not hold water.

It was during the summer of 1777 the pressure was put on Arnold to report on the funds he received from The Colony of Massachusetts. “Benedict Arnold, disgusted by the protracted charges that he had misused funds…had finally submitted his resignation to Congress, but on that same day (11 July 1777) Congress got a request from Washington that Arnold be assigned to Schuyler’s command.” (11) And, since Arnold received his new orders, he was right to assume that Congress took no action on his resignation. But word of it traveled fast.

At the battle of Freeman’s Farm on September 19, 1777, Arnold’s mask of patriotism began to slide off when he was confronted with a General who was to become his worst enemy. He was placed under the command of Major General Horatio Gates, a former British officer who was noted and respected for his defensive strategy, and was very familiar with and wary of Arnold’s unorthodox military career.

During the battle of Freeman’s Farm, Arnold continued to send messengers to Gates – insisting a more aggressive battle be fought, with him at the forefront. Gates not only ignored the messages, but after the battle was won he did not even include Major-General Arnold in his letters to Washington and Congress. Today’s historians, and the generals who participated in that battle are generally split on who was right, but the battle was won, and that’s all that counted at the time.

Arnold called on Gates at his headquarters, and a bitter quarrel took place. Gates told Arnold that as far as he was concerned Arnold had resigned to Congress and that he had never received notice of Arnold being reinstated. A day or two later, Arnold was relieved of all command and Gates forbid him to return to headquarters.

Arnold’s Waterloo took place at the Bemis Height’s Battle of Saratoga, on October 7, 1777, just days later. Author, Hubbard Cobb, related the following story: “Brooding in his tent, Arnold heard the battle in progress, jumped on his mare and dashed toward the site of action. With no authority – and in total disregard for Gates’ orders, Arnold took command of the forward brigade and smashed into the British center.” The author goes on to say, “Some historians believe that Arnold’s incredible behavior and total disregard of orders was that he had either gone mad or was drunk.” (12) Other historians believe it was Arnold’s “Last Hurrah” – and that he wanted to be killed in action to preserve the legend he had worked so hard to build. This may well have been the case, for reports say he rode back and forth in front of heavy enemy fire waving his sword like a mad man. He even wounded one of his own officers by hitting in the head with his sword. Back-and-forth he rode, charging headlong into the center of the enemy line. “He exposed himself – says Wilkinson – no very favorable witness by-the-by ‘with great folly.’” (13) As he did so, his horse was again killed out from under him and a musket ball fractured the thighbone in the same leg he had injured in Quebec. This last wound made him a cripple for the rest of his life.

As he was being carried away in a stretcher, Major Armstrong, who had been sent out by Gates to stop Arnold from joining the battle, caught up with him. His reports say Arnold was laughing loudly as he was being brought back to Gates’ headquarters. As an interesting historical note, there is a monument dedicated to Arnold’s leg on that battlefield to this day (14)

Arnold spent the next year recovering from his wound, and although he requested other commands, Washington put him off time-and-again. By then Washington had started to see what the real Benedict Arnold was like, but he also recalled his earlier deeds and felt pity for this brave officer of his. In June of 1778 Arnold traveled to Washington’s headquarters at Valley Forge, looking for a command – any Command! Luckily for Arnold, the British were evacuating Philadelphia, so Washington appointed Arnold as the Military Governor of that city – until an election could take place.

Washington, knowing full well that Arnold was what we now call a “loose-cannon,” wrote out a lengthy letter of instructions on June 19, 1779, limiting Arnold’s duties to mostly policing the city. But Arnold decided to do whatever he wanted. “Within three days after he took command, he entered in secret mercantile partnerships.” (15) Which he later favored with big contracts. And, while in that position, he lived extravagantly, married the daughter of a leading Tory, and created a political empire based on fraud, embezzlement and oppression. When General Reed was elected President of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania later that year, he proceeded to have Arnold tried at a court-martial where he was found guilty of several crimes. And Washington himself reprimanded him publicly.

During that dramatic trial, Arnold’s true personality was shown publicly. His rage knew no bounds, as he waged an arrogant and defamatory defense. He praised himself for his past military successes, boasted about his wounds in battle and slandered others with no evidence. He grabbed anything that wasn’t nailed down and threw it at his accusers.

What followed was a period of deep debt, bankruptcy, public altercations and disgrace. It was during this period that he began dealing with the enemy – in the person of Major Andre, a British Officer who was stationed in Philadelphia before Arnold took command. Andre had been a friend of Arnold’s father-in-law and wife. Speculation has it that it was Arnold’s wife who put them together.

Andre paid Arnold for information concerning Philadelphia and troop movements. And, it was he who put him in direct contact with Sir Henry Clinton. But Arnold’s sources were quickly drying up. So, he directed all of his energies to securing a position of importance that would be more financially rewarding. He decided that the fort at West Point was a key location in the final days of the war and directed all his powers and intrigue in securing the leadership of that post.

Since Arnold was in constant contact with Clinton, it is quite possible that Arnold knew about the secret talks going on between the British and French military leaders. By 1880 the French were very unhappy with the way they were being treated by the Americans and were considering abandoning this new nation and possibly joining forces with the British. If that came to pass, Arnold would be assured a high rank in the new formed government.

In this correspondence to the King of France, Comte de Rochambeau wrote: “Send us troops, ships and money, but do not count on these people nor their resources, they have neither money nor credit, their forces exist only momentarily, and when they are about to be attacked in their own homes they assemble to defend themselves. Another French commander thought only one highly placed American traitor was needed to decide the campaign.” (16)

By then Clinton had, in fact, found his highly placed traitor in Benedict Arnold. “Money is this man’s god,” one of his enemies had said of Arnold, earlier and evidently he was correct. Lucrative rewards promised by the British led to Arnold’s treason.” (16)

In his quest to secure the command of West Point Arnold called on his few friends in Congress, and the few military men he had not had confrontations with. He convinced them that he was the injured party in a battle for power in Philadelphia. He requested they write letters to General Washington in his behalf. Then he proceeded to beg Washington for forgiveness, and to place trust in him once again to reverse the stigma of his curt-martial. Reluctantly, Washington yielded to his requests and directed Arnold to take charge of the garrison at West Point.

After Arnold was found to have committed acts of treason by selling information about the fort and the surrounding defense, George Washington sent a letter to General Reed, President of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: the same General Reed who had Arnold face court-martial. In a letter dated 18th October 1780, shortly after Arnold fled to the British, Washington penned this letter: “Arnold’s conduct is so villainously perfidious, that there are no terms that can describe the baseness of his heart. The confidence and folly, which have marked the subsequent career of this man are of a piece with his villany (sic) and all three are perfect in their kind.” (17) “Love of money and a general selfishness were his real faults, and they were of a kind to look particularly odious in a commander, at a time when so many men were periling all in the service of their country at her utmost need. Arnold has been brought to trial, for some alleged want of integrity, while in command of Philadelphia…and the disgrace he then suffered probably rankled his mind. At any rate, it is now well known, though then so little suspected, that he had in September 1780, been fifteen months in correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton, with a view of betraying his country.” (18)

After Arnold eluded capture, the British gave him a field command and he made attacks on Virginia and New England, including his own hometown. By now he knew full well that his ties with the revolutionists were at an end, and his only chance for respect and glory was if the British won the war.

An engraving was published in the Pennsylvania Gazette in November 1780. It shows a parade that took place in that city that had a two-faced effigy of Arnold. Looming over Arnold’s back is the Devil awaiting his due – Arnold’s soul! The caption reported that numerous people expressed their abhorrence of the Traitor (19)

Thus, he became one of the most vicious commanders of the war; ordering his men to take no captives and having them burn town-after-town. And during every attack he saved and savored the cruelest punishment for those he knew best. After the war he moved to England with his wife, where everyone except the Royal Family shunned them. One of the most used phrases of the time was: “We accept the treason, but despise the traitor.”

Benedict Arnold stared his life as a sadistic bully and went on to become a malcontent, a liar, an embezzler, and yes, a traitor to this country – and don’t you ever forget it!

End Notes

1. Eminent Americans Comprising Brief Biographies of Leading Statesmen, Patriots, etc. by Bennsin J. Lossing, LLD, p135, John B. Alden, New York 1886

2. WASHINGTON and THE GENERALS of the American Revolution by Edward Meeks, pp. 21-22, Phil. PA, 1858

13. Ibid., p. 258

15. Ibid., p. 259

17. Ibid., p. 243

3. Fort Ticonderoga, A Short History Compiled by S.H.P. Pell, p. 54. Fort Ticonderoga Museum, NY, 1968 reprint

5, Ibid., p. 64

4. The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution As Told By Participants Edited By H.S Cummings & R.B. Morris, p. 104, Harper & Row, NY, 1958

7. Ibid., p. 210

9. Ibid., p. 221

6. AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY by Maurice Matloff, General Editor, p.53, Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D.C. 1969

16. Ibid., p 89

8. THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE By Howard H. Peckman, pp 48-49, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. 1958

10. THE WAR OF THE REVOLUTION VOL II pp 492-493, by Christopher Ward, Macmillan Co., NY, 1952

11. Landmarks of the American Revolution by Mark M. Boatner III, p 197, Stockpole Books, Harrisburg, PA, 1975

14. Ibid., p 301

12. American Battlefields: A Complete guide to the Historical Conflicts In words, Maps, and Photos by Hubbard Cobb, p. 57, Konecky & Konecky, NY, 1995

18. MEMOIRS of WASHINGTON by Mrs. C.M. Kirkland, p. 373, D. Appleton & Co., NY, 1857

19. The Cartoon History of the American Revolution by Michael Wynn Jones pp 146-147, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, NY, 1975