jbg
Active Member
All of us, as schoolchildren, learned about Benedict Arnold. We learned that he was a traitor. See recent article,A Traitor, Burned in Effigy, Again and Again
What we were not taught was his pre-treason, heroic aspect. One thing to remember was that the U.S. was not a country, but an idea, or in the views of the royalists, a renegade, wannabe republic until 1781.
I happen to believe that the raw deal Benedict Arnold was constantly given by the Continental Congress, and Generals Gates and Washington pushed him over the edge into deserting the American cause. This book puts his turn from glorious heroism into the context of its time. The American revolutionaries were a ragtag group of rebels. The one thing that what became the United States was not was a country. What Benedict Arnold betrayed was a rebel movement. History being written by the victors, the U.S. is treated by many as a country as of July 4, 1776, not 1787 when the Constitution was written, or when George Washington took the oath of office in New York City on April 30, 1789.
Benedict Arnold was an undoubted hero from 1774 when he took up arms for the Revolution for a bit more than four years, when the betrayal started. The betrayal came to a head in September or October 1780 when he attempted to turn over West Point to John Andre, a British officer. During the "heroic" period he was grievously wounded not once but twice. He spearheaded an invasion of Quebec City from Maine that nearly took what is now Canada for the revolutionaries.
He and Ethan Allen are rivals for credit for seizing Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 and then helping win the crucial Battle of Saratoga in 1777. That battle, in turn, led directly to French and Dutch recognition and military and financial support for the Revolution. In short it is possible that "no Benedict Arnold, no United States." This is rarely remembered. In no way is Benedict Arnold another Vidkund Quisling, Pierre Laval or Julius or Ethel Rosenberg.
The "thanks" he got from the Continental Congress and corrupt military leaders was to go unpaid, un-thanked and passed over for credit and promotion. He advanced considerable resources to pay soldiers and for military supplies. In his mind, at some point, "enough is enough." Part of the factor seems also have been a steamy affair leading to his second marriage, to Peggy Shippen. Peggy was part of a well-known and wealthy Loyalist Family.
None of this, in my mind, excuses treason. But some leaders should know that when "no good deed goes unpunished" the results are often not good.
Not surprisingly, the British gratitude for Benedict Arnold's turn against the Revolution was fleeting. They did not honor their promises to Benedict. The main moral of the story, I suppose, is that loyalty is a fundamental value, abandoned at peril.
What we were not taught was his pre-treason, heroic aspect. One thing to remember was that the U.S. was not a country, but an idea, or in the views of the royalists, a renegade, wannabe republic until 1781.
I happen to believe that the raw deal Benedict Arnold was constantly given by the Continental Congress, and Generals Gates and Washington pushed him over the edge into deserting the American cause. This book puts his turn from glorious heroism into the context of its time. The American revolutionaries were a ragtag group of rebels. The one thing that what became the United States was not was a country. What Benedict Arnold betrayed was a rebel movement. History being written by the victors, the U.S. is treated by many as a country as of July 4, 1776, not 1787 when the Constitution was written, or when George Washington took the oath of office in New York City on April 30, 1789.
Benedict Arnold was an undoubted hero from 1774 when he took up arms for the Revolution for a bit more than four years, when the betrayal started. The betrayal came to a head in September or October 1780 when he attempted to turn over West Point to John Andre, a British officer. During the "heroic" period he was grievously wounded not once but twice. He spearheaded an invasion of Quebec City from Maine that nearly took what is now Canada for the revolutionaries.
He and Ethan Allen are rivals for credit for seizing Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 and then helping win the crucial Battle of Saratoga in 1777. That battle, in turn, led directly to French and Dutch recognition and military and financial support for the Revolution. In short it is possible that "no Benedict Arnold, no United States." This is rarely remembered. In no way is Benedict Arnold another Vidkund Quisling, Pierre Laval or Julius or Ethel Rosenberg.
The "thanks" he got from the Continental Congress and corrupt military leaders was to go unpaid, un-thanked and passed over for credit and promotion. He advanced considerable resources to pay soldiers and for military supplies. In his mind, at some point, "enough is enough." Part of the factor seems also have been a steamy affair leading to his second marriage, to Peggy Shippen. Peggy was part of a well-known and wealthy Loyalist Family.
None of this, in my mind, excuses treason. But some leaders should know that when "no good deed goes unpunished" the results are often not good.
Not surprisingly, the British gratitude for Benedict Arnold's turn against the Revolution was fleeting. They did not honor their promises to Benedict. The main moral of the story, I suppose, is that loyalty is a fundamental value, abandoned at peril.
