Is it time to grant Benedict Arnold clemency?

A political cartoon from the 1860s showing Benedict Arnold in hell.

A political cartoon from the 1860s showing Benedict Arnold in hell.

Living for a decade and a half in the North Country – and with ancestors who fought against the British in the war of 1812 — I’ve always had mixed feelings about Benedict Arnold.  The man who attempted to betray George Washington has become a byword for treason, his name attached to the darkest traitors in American history.

But he was also instrumental in keeping the revolution alive, capturing Fort Ticonderoga and leading a key naval engagement against the British on Lake Champlain.  On balance, I’ve become convinced that it’s time to rehabilitate Arnold.   Time to bring him back into the pantheon of admittedly secondary and controversial figures who were still important players in the founding of the American republic.

Real crimes, seen in context

It’s not that Arnold was falsely accused.  His crimes against the revolution were unambiguous and ugly.  Angered by what he viewed (rightly, I think) as ill-treatment by Congress, he began a flirtation with the British government that eventually blossomed into full-on skulduggery.  Among other things, he offered to provide the British with military plans for West Point, so that they might win that strategic location on the Hudson River “without loss.”

Making this treason more vile is the fact that, while Arnold clearly had real and growing reservations about the Revolution, he also demanded cold cash in exchange for turning his coat.  Americans, despite our capitalist sensibilities, have always valued principle over filthy lucre when it comes to matters of war and honor.

Arnold was, without question, a deeply flawed man.  And he proved by his own reprehensible actions the deeper and more sterling greatness of those American patriots who persevered in the dark years of the war.  Framed by figures such as George Washington and Paul Revere, he seems shabby and small, even a little pathetic.

But the truth is, that he was none of those things.  Complex, yes.  Guilty of treason, yes.  But Arnold was also one of the most skilled and daring officers in the early fight for independence.  His efforts in Canada and at Valcour Island gave Washington time to maneuver and prepare for a full-scale British invasion.  Compared with Revere and other officers, he was remarkably daring and accomplished.

He was also legitimately concerned about the growing ugliness of anti-Tory sentiment in the new Republic.  He became convinced that the revolution would fail and that mob anarchy was brewing.  Yes, there was clearly deep self-interest shaping his decision to secretly serve the British crown, but he grew to share a widespread sentiment in the colonies that the American experiment was doomed to fail.

If we forgive the Confederate generals, we should grant clemency to Benedict Arnold

Image of the "boot memorial" from Wikipedia commons.   Image by Americasroof

Image of the “boot memorial” from Wikipedia commons. Image by Americasroof

Beyond his important early contributions to the American struggle, there are two reasons that we should re-evaluate Arnold and hopefully restore to him some measure of honor.   First, we’re no longer the sworn enemies of the British.  Arnold’s reputation as an arch-villain solidified at a time when England, and not the Soviet Union, was viewed as the Evil Empire.  In hindsight, it’s a bit easier to understand the divided cultural and political loyalties that might lead a man to waver in the crucible of a long, frustrating war.

Secondly, America has grown used to forgiving its flawed heroes and even its traitors. Arnold’s infamy was established in our collective imaginations at a time when we viewed men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as a kind of secular pantheon, all but unblemished.  But of course, those men were slave owners, trafficking in a type of human commerce that’s now seen as one of the great stains on America’s national character.  We accept those flaws in the context of their wider contribution.

We also talk comfortably about the many Southern military officers who turned coat against the United States during the Civil War.   Without doubt, Benedict Arnold was guilty of treason, but so too were the hundreds of officers who joined the Confederacy in the 1860s, at a time when the US was a much more established nation.  Ironically, much of the Confederacy’s officer corps were graduates of the military academy at West Point, the very strategic position Arnold attempted to betray.

Those officers  had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and the American Republic but they turned against the US.  Their betrayal caused far more carnage and death and placed the Republic in far deeper peril than anything Arnold conspired to do.  And yet we forgive them.  We see their actions as part of a complex world, evidence of conflicted cultural loyalties, as part of a fractured moment in American history.  In much of the country, those officers are celebrated, honored with memorials.

Time for a more respectful monument?

Yet Benedict Arnold remains simply and unambiguously a traitor.  It hardly seems consistent or fair.  We should begin his rehabilitation at Saratoga National Historic Park, right here in the North Country.  The site commemorates the famous Battle of Saratoga, in which Arnold fought so valiantly against the British that a soldier later described him “as the very genius of war.”  Arnold was also brutally injured and was nearly forced to have his leg amputated.  He is memorialized at the site with a bizarre monument that shows only Arnold’s leg.  No name, no image of the man, only the wounded limb cast in stone.

That’s not good enough.  It’s time to restore the full man, in his greatness, in his smallness, in his complexity, to the way that we think about America’s first chapter.  Like a lot of men, Arnold lacked the full genius needed to see our nation born.  But he still deserves a place next to other flawed soldiers, such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who played a painful but important role in our history.

 

 

27 Comments on “Is it time to grant Benedict Arnold clemency?”

Leave a Comment
  1. Elaine says:

    Well-argued, Brian. A few peripheral comments:

    —Your comparison of Arnold to Lee & Jackson is interesting. We have sheltered the Confederate generals with the notion that they acted on a principle of greater loyalty to the state than nation, a principle that still animates large segments of our political life. —Military historians now credit Arnold with more than personal bravery at Saratoga; the consensus is that the American effort was failing until Arnold re-charged the troops with his extraordinary performance, leading decisively to our all-important victory over “the greatest military power in the world.” —And finally, the reprehensible behavior of the Congress during the revolutionary struggle is a comfort to me, demonstrating that we have survived despite a Congress with a very long tradition of ‘reprehensible-ness.’

  2. John Crotty says:

    Interesting article. The passage of time does allow us to examine this issue with better perspective, but I disagree that Benedict Arnold should be rehabilitated. I think the comparison to Southern generals in the Civil War is flawed. Robert E. Lee and the other Southern generals picked their side when the Southern states seceded and before the serious fighting began. True, they broke from their oaths as officers of the Union, but not in the middle of the conflict as Arnold did. Also, the Southern generals did not make their choice for money or because they felt slighted and under appreciated. In my opinion, Arnold’s betrayal is still worthy of the infamy it attained. Lastly, I think his betrayal was all the more painful because he had been a very capable general and leader….his accomplishments were significant…..from helping with the capture of Ft. Ticonderoga to his March to Quebec to his role in delaying the British campaign in the fall of 1776 at Valcour to his role in Saratoga the following year. It is sad that he is not remembered with other military leaders of the Revolution like Washington, Greene, Morgan, Wayne, and others, but that is why his treason was all the more significant and should be remembered as such.

  3. Brian Mann says:

    John –

    Obviously, Benedict Arnold’s rehabilitation is debatable. But so too is the rehabilitation of the Confederate generals. Your characterization of Lee’s behavior is a good example of the kind of hedging that people indulge in.

    Traitors to the United States fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, an unambiguous act of armed treason. Lee resigned his commission in the US Army eight days later, well after the President of the United States had ordered the US Army to the defense of our Republic.

    Lee had long scorned the idea of Secession, describing it as “anarch.” But with his nation facing immediate peril and military assault, he not only failed to fulfill his oath to defend the Constitution, he turned his coat and took up as commander of the enemies of the United States.

    Brian, NCPR

  4. Mr. Kent says:

    In fact, Robert E. Lee took an oath to the United States Of America and all that went with it.An oath he failed to live up to. He resigned after Virginia seceded. The Confederacy was proclaimed in February 1861. It had a government, flag, a seal and for that period of time , 1861-1865, was a separate country at war with the United States.
    Robert E. Lee was not a stupid man. He knew there would be conflict and chose to fight against the country he had once belonged to and swore an oath to defend. There is no difference between Arnold and Lee, only in the aura that surrounds the Civil War being viewed as some family feud.
    They were both accomplished military men and both traitors to the United States of America.

  5. Mr. Kent says:

    And then there is Nathan Bedford Forest, the much heralded Confederate Cavalry leader who went on to found the Klu Klux Klan.
    Lee, Forest and all were traitors to the United States of America. Period.

  6. Jim Frenette Sr. says:

    If you consider just Arnold’s critical contributions at Valcour Island and Saratoga and how they kept the Revolution alive and motivated France to give us aid that led to success at Yorktown you might have a favorable attitude regarding his rehabilitation.

    Indeed had we lost the Battle of Saratoga West Point along with the Revolution itself could have been lost.

    In balance,his heroics far out weigh his troubled decision regarding West Point .

  7. John Crotty says:

    I think there are other factors in play as to why Southern generals were rehabilitated but Arnold was not. I agree that the Southern generals turned their back on and made war against the Union. Even if one says those generals acted on their principles, those principles supported the morally reprehensible system of slavery. I think their rehabilitation is partly a product of the fact that the north and south had to reconcile following the end of the Civil War. This reconciliation was a long and difficult process for both sides…but might be compared to a couple reconciling after a long bitter conflict. Such a process will involve some manner of rehabilitation. The dynamics are different for Àrnold. America and England did not reunite following the American Revolution….unlike a couple making up after a fight (like the north and south after the Civil War), England and America got a divorce. Rehabilitation is more difficult in this situation. Certainly loyalists and Patriots had to reconcile following the American Revolution, but Arnold’s treachery wasn’t necessary to this process.

  8. Mr. Kent says:

    John Crotty:
    Rehabilitation? What rehabilitation. The Southern Generals were granted amnesty after the war. Technically they were ‘ paroled ‘ , as were all southern soldiers.That’s all. Even N.B.Forest and the massacres of Black Union Soldiers after the battle of Fort Pillow. In2000 a monument to the ” Father of the Klan” was put up in Selma Alabama, and public schools named after him. Rehabilitated? No, those traitors are honored in the South and glorified.

    It was not practicable to try all the southern leaders for treason. Southern juries would not have convicted regardless. So, the North did what is usually done in these cases, they made a few examples and let a few take the blame and punishment for the many.

    Union General George Thomas summed it up best when he stated in 1868 “The crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand-in-hand with the defenders of the (US) Government.”

    History was allowed to be rewritten. And now it is in stone.

  9. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    All of our Founding Fathers were traitors to the King. Arnold risked his life many times over; financed military operations from his own fortune; and saved the revolution at least twice through the force of his own will. Few men contributed more to the eventual victory of the colonials but Arnold through his act of treachery never gained the fruits of victory that some… like Washington’s land grab.

  10. The Original Larry says:

    Lee became an acceptable icon of the “Lost Cause” because he was politically correct enough (for his time), was respected by both sides, paid a heavy price for his actions and died early, with his reputation intact.

  11. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    President Tyler (not that anyone remembers him) was elected to the congress of the CS of A. A President who was a traitor, why don’t they teach that in school?

  12. jeff says:

    I essentially agree with Knuck. But can’t quite reach the clemency angle Brian suggests. Arnold’s case demonstrates what happens when pushed over a personal breaking point. And it also shows how ill treatment by leaders ( legislatures in New England and Pennsylvania) can cause harm. Arnold took offense, justifiably, we now know. His ultimate reaction was his choice from his vantage point. He ended up on the side that surrendered. He was eventually a turncoat despite all his good actions, financial support (paying for boats and equipment) etc. He makes a good character study. The behavior of those legislatures is also good for discussion… politics & power and selfishness!

  13. Mr. Kent says:

    Great topic for discussion and all excellent comments. Thank you Mr. Mann.

  14. Jim Bullard says:

    Brian, you failed to mention that at the point when Arnold was feeling aggrieved by congress he also received a reprimand from Washington, whom he respected highly, and around the same time he married the daughter of a loyalist. I strongly suspect that her loyalist leanings exerted considerable influence on his decision to switch sides. Yes, He demanded money, and a commission in the British army. He was broke. The circumstances around his decision were a ‘perfect storm’ as we like to say today.

  15. DanP says:

    In the case of Robert E. Lee, it was not clear that secession was treason. When secession was breaking out, he chose not to be put in a position of firing on his neighbors. He had been pardoned by president Johnson upon application. Interestingly, he started out opposing secession, and opposed the formation of the Confederate Army. When he resigned, he took a position in what was effectively Virginia’s state militia. He was never indicted for treason. Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason, but the case was never brought. The prosecution figured they would have a hard time wining, and that it would make reconstruction harder. Eventually, he was pardoned before case was brought. So this leaves the question of whether secession was actually treason at that time, since it didn’t actually seek to overthrow the US government (the definition in the constitution). In any case, during reconstruction, they seemed to feel the questions would be very awkward to argue in court. In Benedict Arnold’s case, he had been a real major hero. He won a difficult battle and a protracted engagement, during which he was significantly wounded in battle. During that time, he lost most of his family wealth. The Continental Congress treated him poorly – even while he racked up his hero points. I have heard that, in some respects, he was being used as a pawn in a power struggle within the Continental Congress over George Washington’s leadership vs. H. Gates, since Arnold was a close friend of Washington’s. While recuperating, he was associating with Philadelphia society, including particularly Peggy Shippen, a young sweet girl in a family of British sympathizers – which exposed him to the enemy which tended to treat him far more cordially than his own government did. Given his aspirations, losses, and all else, he was in a good position to be turned. The sad thing was was that he was turned. The Articles of Confederation under the 2nd Continental Congress took almost no power – it didn’t assume any sovereignty – except to assume debts, make treaties, wars, etc. Since it wasn’t a nation, it did not even have power to collect taxes it could beg for. It also would make it difficult to commit treason against. So on that point, it seems Benedict Arnold’s situation is even more ambiguous than Jefferson Davis’ situation. Except that he was a US General and compatriot with Washington. As a military man, treating with the enemy and turning traitor was reasonably a hanging offense. His treason played badly for Washington’s credibility in that fight within the Continental Congress as well – which didn’t help the war.

    Rehabilitation? I don’t think that kind of question is even worth asking. It is much more valuable, I think, to understand how he got into a situation where he was exposed to that temptation, why was it so tempting, and what does that say about the leadership of the Continental Congress, Washington, etc, on this one point? Or, more likely, they all considered such an event preposterous to begin with. What can we learn from that today about the impact of the machinations of politics and unintended consequences?

    Similarly for the Civil War, 12/26/1860 – Ft Sumter forced the question for a lot of people. It was likely to be damaging to a lot of people’s careers, but largely it wasn’t realized how serious things were going to get. When the opening battles started, people showed up with picnic baskets to watch the spectacle. I don’t think anybody took the prospect of war very seriously, and expected the South to crumple up and surrender… except the Southerners. The question is then which actions when did the secession turn into something that could be called treason? At Ft. Sumter, a lot of the Southern States had not made any commitments. Lincoln called for suspension of Habeas Corpus (military action taken on US soil), and called for states to send troops to retake Sumter — THAT is what prompted more Southern states to secede. At a time when personal honor was such that people defended it in duels regularly – and socially expected to – and at a time when service to homeland and country was rated so highly, while each side had their complaints against the other, It isn’t too surprising, in a way. Again, no rehabilitiation – but a good study of the history – especially leading up to and through the start – is really worth understanding (and I admit at the start, my own understanding is far from perfect). It wasn’t the first time we almost had secessions – the election of Jefferson almost tipped a revolt. There were 4 candidates, Pinkney from SC, Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr. The dynamics involving Pinkney, as a southerner, were not necessarily in Jefferson’s favor. The recent Federalist activities (including Alien and Sedition acts) didn’t help them much – and Aaron Burr was a strong candidate. He was polarizing – to the point that Alexander Hamilton (Federalist) sided with Jefferson (Democratic-Republican – and whom Hamilton detested) against Aaron Burr (whom Hamilton detested more). Ultimately, Hamilton was willing to support Jefferson in part, over Adams, because he didn’t like Adam’s policies, and was hamstrung to oppose them because Adams was essentially leader of the Federalist’s government. Seems Hamilton didn’t like a lot of people. Eventually, Burr shot Hamilton in a duel revolving around political slander. It would be 60 more years before the American Civil War finally broke out. But the political bed was already largely made back then.

  16. Mr. Kent says:

    Dan P.
    Fort Sumter was Federal property. Governor Pickens demanded that the federal government “surrender” it as early as January 1861. It was an act of war against the United States of America once fired upon. R.E.Lee , knowing the demands of South Carolina chose to join forces with those who seeking to take control of federally owned property. He chose to ignore his oath to his former country choose a new one. Perhaps economics played into it. The family came from money. Southern money.
    R.E. Lee had another choice that no one seems to talk about. He did not have to choose north or south. He could have resigned his position in the military and gone home and stayed out of the war. Many people did on both sides. Lee was a traitor to the USA and voluntarily gave up his citizenship. Even Lincoln said he should be hanged.
    The question of what constitutes treason should not obscure the obvious. The states that formed the CSA and those who fought for it waged war on the United States of America, it’s people and it’s properties. It is no more complex than that.

  17. Jeff says:

    The reprimand was something Washington had to do because of Arnold’s personal use of army wagons to bring in goods for sale . Arnold was in his position as military governor of Philadelphia. In the midst of an embargo he was bringing in tea and luxury goods. Following a review of the case by the executive council of Pennsylvania, Washington had to say something (or risk losing financial support from Pennsylvania), which he did while praising Arnold’s distinguished service. I wonder if Washington had had a private conversataion with Arnold if the outcome would have been different despite the need to put a reprimand in writing. It is quite possible the circumstances of meeting his future wife when he went to Philidelphia and his economic circumstances changed his inclinations with the help of the reprimand.

  18. The Original Larry says:

    Mr. Kent, can you cite a source for your comment “Even Lincoln said he should be hanged.” I’ve been unable to find anything on this. Thanks.

  19. Two Cents says:

    …and what about his eggs? if he was really that bad, would we have named one of the best breakfast dishes in history in his honor?

  20. Mitch Edelstein says:

    Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
    Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

    Interesting point about Secession not being Treason because it did not advocate overthrow of of U.S. government.

    A trip to Gettysburg battlefield, with the old monuments on the Northern side and the much newer monuments on the Southern side illustrates the reconciliation that occurred in the late 20th century.

  21. The Original Larry says:

    Treason is, by definition, action against one’s own country. Since the Confederate states believed in their right to leave the Union and did so, their actions were not thought by many to be treasonous. Additionally, the Constitution is silent on secession but does say that powers not specifically given to the Federal government or denied to the states are reserved for the states. That leaves considerable room for debate.

  22. Jeff says:

    I think the monument situation at Gettysburg represents who got together and when they got together to raise funds to erect a monument to remember their comrades. The south lost proportionately more people and was not as flush with spare change to hire a scupltor soon after the war.

  23. TomL says:

    Let’s not forget that after the failed plot to deliver West Point to the British (and, it seems, to kidnap George Washington), Benedict Arnold did active service as a loyalist officer in the vicious southern campaign. His loyalist troops torched Richmond (Jefferson barely escaped). He later led a raid to New London, Connecticut – which was torched – in order to divert some of the troops laying siege to Cornwallis at Yorktown. Arnold did save the Revolution, true, but in the end he did his best to defeat it.

  24. Two Cents says:

    ..and he liked to play with matches it seems. nice trivia TomL

  25. Mitch Edelstein says:

    Jeff,

    I don’t believe that Southern monuments would have been welcome at Gettysburg during the lifetime of Northern vets. There were a number of reunions at Gettysburg that were peaceful and well attended.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_Gettysburg_reunion

  26. bill shaver says:

    just figure how this would have all turned out had the 13 collinies gone into mobe rule like in france durring their transformation into a republic….could have all been a failure resulting in all 14 colonies being given home rule by the crown and being called THE DOMINION OF CANADA…….dont even think it was a fait accomplie ever…After 1790, the 13 colonies experienced the de-population of 50,000 to colony of canada & west indies, and back to britian.

  27. Tom Flattery says:

    read The Spy Who Came In FromThe Cold and Last years Homeland to understand how a double agent is set up. Arnold ‘s time in Philadelphia was the perfect set-up of a double agent.
    Marrying Peggy Shippen and the Washington Court Martial had to happen for the Brits to believe that Arnold was bitter enough to turn coat. Washington was fully involved and a master of counterintelligence. The goal was to convince Andre, also well trained in espionage, that West Point would be handed over without a battle. Andre’s capture was not part of the plan, and Arnold, a master at “Plan B”, took off to convince Gen. Clinton that West Point could fall.

    Even if this thesis is wrong, none of your commenters mentioned that no American was even scratched as a result of Arnold’s actions. In fact, many loyal Americans, especially New Englanders, opened their wallets and started contributing to the cause of Liberty.

Leave a Reply