Posted by
flagwaver on Saturday, May 31, 2008 12:47:19 PM
Benedict Arnold. The name says it all, doesn’t it? It is a rarity when a man’s name becomes synonymous with anything in this world, but in this case there is no doubt what this name means. It ranks right up there with Judas Iscariot in recognition and in infamy. As surely as the name George Washington signifies leadership; as Socrates signifies learning; as Alexander signifies conquest, so does the name Benedict Arnold signify betrayal to the American mind.
We all know the story of how Arnold conspired with the British intelligence officer Major John Andre to turn over the key American military post of Fort Arnold, now West Point, on the Hudson River. Most have taken as gospel that the reasoning behind Arnold’s betrayal was about money, or love, or hurt pride. And all of that is true to a certain extent, but many have never stopped to think of the feelings, emotions, and actions that really drove Arnold to leave the Continental Army of which he had been such an instrumental part. What could make this officer, this hero; turn his back on the very men he had commanded with such valor in battles in Saratoga, in Quebec, at Fort Ticonderoga, and the defense of Valcor Island? Why would he turn his back on his fellow officers, and especially on General Washington, the man who had so often stood as his patron in the Army?
While there are the well known reasons as to why Arnold made his treasonous turn; his new Loyalist wife and his anger at being passed over for promotion chief among them, there is one set of circumstances that may shed greater light on his decision making. One is his constant battles with the Continental Congress. The Congress, in what could only be a case of partisan bickering and personal animosity towards the brash young General, stymied Arnold’s advancement at nearly every turn. When he resigned his commission and was then talked back into the service by his fellow officers, the Congress agreed to reinstate him but refused to restore his seniority in the Army. This meant that although he had a greater rank than some others, he remained a junior officer who answered to men who had neither his leadership ability nor his record of battlefield success. This had to rankle the young man who had fought so valiantly in the cause of the revolution, to be subordinated to men who could not hold a candle to him as a commander and leader of men.
There was also the matter of money, but not in the way that many think. In the ill fated battle to invade Canada and take Quebec, the Continental Congress did not provide the necessary funds to carry out the mission. This left it to General Arnold to finance the mission practically out of pocket, which he did to further the cause of the Revolution. The Congress had intimated that Arnold was to be reimbursed for his expenses but later refused to repay the money that Arnold had laid out for financing the mission. While this was not a sufficient reason to betray his cause, it is certainly a contributing factor to his decision making. Think about it this way: The very cause that Arnold was fighting for, the very Congress he served, had consistently blocked his promotions, stripped him of his seniority, and now were refusing to repay the money he had spent in service to the Revolution. I propose that it was not the money, but the principle that moved Arnold towards his fateful decision. How would many of us feel if our country and comrades treated us this way? Would we be able to say we would remain totally committed to the cause, when the cause was not committed to us?
However, there is one circumstance that many, in my opinion, misinterpret when looking at what moved Arnold to betray his comrades. And it all has its roots in a political power play launched in Philadelphia when Arnold served as the military commander in the city.
One Joseph Reed, who served as basically the governor of the state had a long running feud with Arnold and he used his political position to go after Arnold. Reed was determined to restore political power in the state of Pennsylvania to the state authorizes, and to do this he had to break the power of the military authorities in the city of Philadelphia, which meant going after Benedict Arnold himself.
Reed began by launching a media campaign to discredit Arnold in the eyes of the people, and he accomplished it by insinuating that Arnold was a closet Loyalist, as he was courting the daughter of a noted Philadelphia Loyalist. He also charged Arnold with several counts of malfeasance and abuse of power in his handling of the business of the city, which served to bring not only Arnold’s personal decision making into question, but questioned his honor as a soldier as well. Arnold responded in the press as well, and the matter escalated to the point that the Continental Congress decided to hold a hearing on the matter on March 5, 1779. Arnold answered the charges to the satisfaction of the Congress, which recommended that the charges be handled in a military council; Arnold requested and was granted a hearing before his fellow members of the military set to take place in May 1779.
But Joseph Reed was not finished with Arnold, and used his personal relationship with General Washington to continue to press for Arnold’s court martial by the military. Reed eventually did something that was every bit, in my mind, as treasonous as the later actions Arnold took in attempting to turn over Fort Arnold. At a time when the Continental Army was in need of all the supplies it could get to continue the fight, Reed basically blackmailed George Washington into pursuing the court martial of General Arnold. Reed, as “governor” of Pennsylvania threatened Washington with the loss of needed supplies from the state if he did not press ahead with the charges against Arnold, knowing full well that the Revolution could very well falter if it was deprived of those supplies.
This put Washington in an unenviable position; he was being forced to choose between the needs of his Army and the protection of Arnold’s honor. It was a very hard decision to make, but eventually Washington postponed Arnold’s military hearing date and preferred the charges against him. He had chosen to meet the needs of his Army and to abandon the General who had stood beside him when others doubted his leadership, and who had become a virtual cripple in the service of that Army.
Arnold of course felt betrayed by his leader, as he realized that by allowing the hearing date to be postponed it kept the question of his honor in front of the public and gave the impression that he was guilty of the charges being lodged against him. When Washington sent a letter of reprimand to him, and then when he was later convicted of two minor offenses it proved to him that the leadership of the Army had finally deserted him. Even the Continental Congress, no friend of Arnold’s to be sure, felt that the charges and the conviction were dubious at best. So we can only imagine the emotions and feelings of betrayal that Arnold felt at being convicted of charges that were so clearly politically motivated. And how would any of us feel if after being wounded several times in the line of duty, after being instrumental in success after success on the battlefield, and serving faithfully honorably, and with distinction we were sold down the river to satisfy the vendetta of a politician?
And while we know that Arnold betrayed his fledgling country, why do we not generally know the name of Joseph Reed? And why do we not know the sorry story of his part in the court martial of General Arnold? And why is General Washington given a total pass on his knuckling under to the blackmail of Reed, and the willingness to sacrifice the reputation and honor of General Arnold?
This is not an attempt to exonerate General Arnold for his crime, but it is an attempt to give some context to it. General Arnold did not lightly decide to betray his countrymen, and in many ways could make a point that he had been betrayed by the country. The running battles with the Constitutional Congress; the denial of promotions; the refusal to reimburse his money for the Quebec campaign; the assault on his personal honor by Reed, and the decision by Washington to trade his honor for supplies would make any of us feel betrayed.
And in this case betrayal begat betrayal.