The Collective Memory of Benedict Arnold’s Treason: A Negative Example Created and Perpetuated by the Republican

Motherhood to Teach Morality to a Young Nation

By

Katherine R. Ingrao December 2011

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theMaster of Arts in History

Dual-Degree Program in History and Archives ManagementSimmons College

Boston, Massachusetts

The author grants Simmons College permission to include this thesis in its Library and to make it available to the academic community for scholarly purposes.

Submitted by

Katherine R. Ingrao Your Name Here

Approved by:

______ Name (thesis advisor) Name (second reader)Title Title

Ingrao 2

Introduction:

The collective memory in the United States of Benedict Arnold as the first and arguably,

the worst traitor in American history was orchestrated and perpetuated by the Republican

Motherhood as part of their mission to shape the morality of the fledgling nation. The

Republican Motherhood movement, as it would be labeled much later in the 20th century,

evolved in the Revolutionary generation, those individuals coming of age between 1760 and

1790. It advocated women as the protector and champion of the tenets of republicanism and civic

virtue through their influence on their children and husbands. The Republican Motherhood

successfully cemented Benedict Arnold’s tainted reputation as the antithesis of a loyal American

in American culture when they used him as a negative example in their teaching of civic virtue.

This completely negative characterization has persisted in American culture through the

centuries. Only recently has the historical community diverged from a universally negative

summation of Benedict Arnold’s place in American history.

The indirect relationship between Benedict Arnold and the Republican Motherhood

movement is a significant component that is missing from the existing scholarly literature. Both

subjects are amply researched, but they have not been adequately intersected. Historians have

delved into the reasoning behind the actions of Benedict Arnold and the motivations behind the

Republican Motherhood movement. They have not connected Benedict Arnold’s position as the

most reviled traitor in American history with the concerted efforts of the Republican

Motherhoods movement to magnify his wrongdoing to create, in essence, a “folk anti-hero.”

Through the use of oral tradition, stories and songs the Republican Motherhood

movement taught morality and civic virtue in the home; these methods defined virtue and

villainy throughout our culture and magnified the memory of Arnold and his treason into

Ingrao 3

antihero proportions in our collective memory. Gary Fine, a noted researcher on bad reputations,

could have been referring to Benedict Arnold when he wrote, “Even if reputations are grounded

in history, they do not just happen: they must be sponsored.”1 Arnold’s treason at West Point was

so universally deplored that the Republican Motherhood used him as the ultimate bad example as

they worked to shape America’s moral code. Lori Ducharme and Gary Alan Fine expressed the

complex relationship between Arnold and American history best when they wrote, “His

reputation is linked to American society’s definitions of itself.”2

American Collective Memory of Benedict Arnold:

Lori Ducharme and Gary Alan Fine theorize that Arnold provided an archenemy for

Americans to rally against which motivated a recommitment to the Revolutionary cause near the

end of the war.3 I argue that as a part of this same process, Arnold’s archenemy character was

appropriated by the Republican Motherhood movement and utilized as an educational tool in the

creation of a definition of civic virtue. Arnold’s historical reputation, as a result, was demonized

and transformed beyond recognition. Arnold morphed into a caricature of an arch-enemy and has

remained so to this day.

Other than Benedict Arnold’s infamous attempt to surrender West Point to the British in

1780 and eventually joining the British Army, there is little of Benedict Arnold’s military career

that is part of our collective memory of the Revolutionary War. In many biographies the focus of

his military career is almost exclusively on the West Point plot disregarding anything prior to

1780. For the most part, the authors of these biographies view Arnold negatively as an arch-

1 ibid., 21.2 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Non-personhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold” Social Forces 73, no.4 (1995): 1309-1331. 3 Ducharme. “The Construction of Non-personhood and Demonization,” 1309.

Ingrao 4

traitor.4 Our collective memory focuses on the facts of the treason and leaves out all the

complexities of Arnold’s motivations and the ambiguities of colonial society.

Major General Arnold solicited General Washington for the command of West Point and

won it by August 3, 1780.5 Arnold had decided to surrender West Point, a strategic spot on the

Hudson River, critical to successful delivery of supplies throughout the colonies, to the British in

exchange for money.

In preparation for the handing over of West Point, Arnold secretly corresponded with

British Major Andre. Arnold demanded twenty thousand pounds sterling and a command in the

British army but was only offered ten thousand pounds sterling and no promises for more by

British General Sir Carlton.6 Once terms were negotiated, the plan was simple. Arnold would

strategically weaken West Point to make a siege by a small British force easily accomplished and

he would quickly surrender the fort. To finalize the plans, Arnold requested a secret meeting

with Major Andre who arrived on the British vessel, the Vulture. Andre intended to leave on the

ship after the meeting but the ship came under attack, forcing him to return to New York by land

in disguise.7

Colonel John Jameson quickly apprehended Major Andre in Westchester revealing the

plot to hand over West Point.8 Upon receiving word of Andre’s capture and his exposure as a

traitor, Arnold had no other choice but to flee instantly. With only a quick word to his wife,

4 Clare Brandt,, The Man in the Mirror: A Life of Benedict Arnold (New York: Random House, 1994), 1-279.

Jim Murphy, The Real Benedict Arnold (New York: Clarion Books, 2007), 1-233.Brian Richardson Boylan. Benedict Arnold: The Dark Eagle (W.W. Norton & Company, 1973)5 Brandt, The Man in the Mirror, 196.6 ibid., 208.7 ibid., 219.8 ibid., 220.

Ingrao 5

Arnold briskly rowed to the Vulture that still lingered in the West Point area.9 The news spread

quickly to the Continental Congress through General Washington and to the general public.

The news of his betrayal received a strong reaction from colonists. An early biographer

of Arnold’s described the sentiments of the Patriots quite well. “It became the passionate desire

of a whole nation to blacken his character. Instantly he became an outcast and an outlaw. Every

pen denounced, every tongue cursed him. If this had been confined to his treason, none would

have questioned its justice, but in their just hatred, the people wished to make him wholly

odious.”10

The hatred colonists felt toward him began a reworking of Arnold’s historical reputation.

Altering a figure’s historical reputation involves two processes: the reconstruction of his

biography by selective emphasis on historical events and evaluating his motives and continually

analyzing them.11 These two processes are utilized by societies in order to commemorate their

troubling historical figures. These troubling figures tend to be prominent in their communities

and gained a certain amount of admiration. However they have committed one highly

condemnable act. This single act is a stark contradiction from their previous public image.

Society must face this contradiction and contemplate how or if they should be commemorated.

Benedict Arnold had not betrayed a King; he had betrayed a Republic in which every

citizen had a stake.12 So every citizen personally felt his betrayal and wished to issue punishment.

They clamored for public humiliation and loudly cheered the public flogging of his reputation.

Their editorials, burning of effigies, and striking his name from public records were a dramatic

public reaction that transformed his identity into that of a deviant and outcast.13 The events of his

9 ibid., 221.10 Arnold, Issac. The Life of Benedict Arnold. (Jansen, McClurg, 1880), 5.11 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood” 1311.12 Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now?, 135.13 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold” Social Forces 73, no.4 (1995): 1310.

Ingrao 6

life leading up to the moment of treason at West Point were rewritten to fit the dramatic script in

an allegory pitting good against evil. Stories of his childhood depicted an exaggerated and

inherently evil boy who plagued the neighborhood children and wildlife. As the portrayal of the

ultimate villain, he could have no redeeming character traits and there must have been treasonous

intent behind every action in his life.

The demonization process of Benedict Arnold had begun. The demonization process

involves the removal of any ambiguities in the moral character so that the commemorated figure

is undeniably evil. The transformation of a historical villain is much more drastic and is in

conjunction with misidentification wherein any previously moral acts prior to villainy are

permanently expunged. Another famous historical figure subjected to the same vilification would

be Jefferson Davis. His decision to lead the Confederate States of America during the American

Civil War marked him as a traitor by every Northerner. His character was assassinated and

comparisons were made with Benedict Arnold.

The public frequently likened Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the

Confederate States during the Civil War, to Benedict Arnold. A political cartoon published in

1865 depicted Arnold, Davis, and Satan all sharing the duties of stirring a “Treason Toddy” at

their family reunion. Satan proclaims his pride in both of his American sons as he drops African

American slaves into the toddy. Benedict fittingly welcomes Davis home.14 While the cartoon is

obviously pro-Union, it shows the correlation that the northern states made between the two men.

There are many similarities between the two men’s situations. Both men had to choose

between the motherland and a revolutionary new nation. Both were accomplished military men

who had been well respected prior to the point at which they chose sides. Although both had

14 Burgoo, Zac. A Proper Family Re-union. American political prints, 1766-1876 / Bernard F. Reilly. Boston : G.K. Hall, 1991, entry 1865-12. From OhioCivilWar150.org photo archive, http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/omeka/items/show/1758.

Ingrao 7

been part of the faction breaking away from their motherland, Arnold was a traitor to a new

upstart nation when he decided to return to his motherland while Jefferson Davis remained a

leader in a movement to break away from the motherland. Separated by less than one hundred

years they were considered traitors of the same ilk. This cartoon demonstrates the strong

association of treachery with Arnold even after the passing of so much time.

The suppression of the virtuous side of the person rather than presenting the whole person

is the process of non-personhood.15 Non-personhood is a skewed perspective that does not allow

for the proper documentation and learning of history. History should present the complete

person, both good and bad, so that students may make their own assessments of the decisions and

actions of historical figures. History’s treatment of Benedict Arnold offers an excellent example

of the casualties of skewed histories.

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette in 1781, Benjamin Franklin described Arnold as

far worse than the devil, “Judas sold only one man, Arnold sold three million.”16 The imagery

consistently depicted Arnold as consorting with the devil. His name became synonymous with

both traitors and with the devil. Patriotic colonists expressed their hatred for Arnold by parading

effigies of him consorting with Satan in Boston, Philadelphia, and Providence among others.

Mobs also defaced the graves of both his father and infant brother in Norwich, Connecticut

because they carried the name Benedict Arnold. 17 “Never was a more universal hatred focused

upon a man or his name. It is almost impossible to describe the flood of abuse, contempt,

execration and hatred that now poured upon the name and reputation of Arnold by those offering

15 ibid., 1310. 16 Lengyel, I Benedict Arnold, 186.17Jim Murphy, The Real Benedict Arnold (New York: Clarion Books, 2007), 221.

Ingrao 8

their lives to create a nation.”18 The hatred even came in poetic form. An acrostic poem entitled

“An Acrostic-On Arnold” was printed in October 1780: 19

Born for a curse to virtue and Mankind,Earth’s broadcast realms can’t show so black a mind.Night’s sable veil your crimes can never hide,Each one’s so great- they glut the historic tide,Defunct- your memory will liveIn the glare that infamy can give.Curses of ages will attend your name,Traitors alone will glory in your shame.Almighty justice sternly waits to rollRivers of sulphur [sic.] on your traitorous soul.Nature looks back, with conscious error sad,On such a tainted volt that she has made,Let Hell receive you riveted in chains,Damn’d to the hottest of flames.

The colonists’ extreme reactions to Arnold’s treason with effigies and demonization are

the key to the connection between the formation of America’s concept of civic virtue and

Arnold’s collective memory. A society solidifies the reputation of its villains in collective

memory through dramatic public reactions to activities that offend their shared values. Through

editorials, songs, poems and satirical depictions of Benedict Arnold as the devil, the citizens of

Revolutionary America transformed Benedict Arnold’s collective memory into that of the

quintessential traitor and a reviled outcast. An exemplary citizen sacrificed his goods and safety

for the cause and put the republican cause ahead of self-interest.

Every aspect of Arnold’s life was held up as an example of the opposite - an evil self-

serving man. These verbal reactions by the colonists are more prolonged versions of the

degradation ceremonies. Degradation ceremonies, such as those following Benedict Arnold’s

treason, transformed the offender into a deviant and outcast who is defined as evil. 20 Degradation

18 Arnold, Issac. The Life of Benedict Arnold.( Jansen, McClurg, 1880)18, 34.19 Martin, Benedict Arnold, 9.20 Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 33.

Ingrao 9

ceremonies involving Arnold spurred the new nation to define the civic values that would have

long lasting effects. Arnold’s degradation became tied to the code of morality established for the

fledgling nation.

The negative response to Benedict Arnold signaled that the colonists were tightening

their moral boundaries. Due to the length of the conflict many colonists had grown lax in their

support of the Revolutionary cause. Arnold’s treason indicated weakness and revealed the

hypocrisy of his fellow countrymen. It is not unexpected that the citizenry would want to

distance itself from him. They accused him of not abiding by the pledge of self-sacrifice and

abusing his power to seek fortune in speculation and his merchant trade. While these accusations

had foundation, Arnold’s activities did not differ from the actions other colonists committed at

the time. Charles Royster in his article “The Nature of Treason: Revolutionary Virtue and

American Reactions to Benedict Arnold” quoted a private in the Continental army who best

described the plague of self interest ravaging the colonists near the end of the war.

“Did they not know that their doings were crimes-that they were cheating their country, and exposing its defenders to additional sufferings and to death?. . . These men could enjoy the sweets of domestic ease, talk about liberty and the rights of mankind, possibly without even a recollection of their parricidal guilt, which in minds subject to any reflection, would excite the most poignant remorse.”21

This soldier expressed the confusion felt by all Patriots at Arnold’s betrayal. Patriots were not

being truthful to themselves of their fellow countrymen. Their desire for personal gain clouded

their conscience and the logical consequences of not abiding by boycotts.

The colonists saw in Arnold the worst in themselves and this energized their

recommitment to their 1776 ideals.22 By defining Arnold as the antithesis of a loyal committed

21 Royster, Charles. “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no.2 (1979), 178.22 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood,” 1315.

Ingrao 10

Patriot, colonists reinvigorated their zeal and commitment to the cause. Their rejection of him

was an effort to close ranks against outside threats, internally to purge the disloyal, as well to

foster increased social solidarity.23 Patriots forgot their own loose associations to the cause and

their previous tolerance of entrepreneurial exploits like Arnold’s as they scrambled to paint

themselves as virtuous. Even the British acknowledged the hypocrisy of the situation. One

British intelligence report said that the reactions of Americans revealed their own great distrust

of one another.24

Arnold was able to successfully escape capture and begin fighting for the British. Patriots

did not have him in custody and were frustrated by their inability to try him, sentence him or

hang him.

The story of Arnold is in the highest degree painful, yet it has not been without its use. It has set before the world a lesson never to be forgotten, showing the danger of profligate habits, the gulf of ruin to which loose principles of action lead, the everlasting infamy which awaits the traitor to his country.25

Ironically, as the Patriots were stymied in their quest for vengeance against Benedict Arnold, the

defamation of his good name and his fall from an esteemed position in society were actually a

devastating consequence from Benedict Arnold’s perspective. That was a grave punishment for a

man who craved good standing in society. Samuel Griswold Goodrich, an author and publisher

from the 1840s wrote this of Arnold’s treason.

The constant debasement of Arnold by Patriots did not temper the public’s anger, but

only intensified it through their deep sense of betrayal. Arnold became the one unequaled evil.

Just as they sought heroes to worship and rally around, they were looking for a focal point of

23 Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult reputations, 33.24 Royster, Charles. “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” 187.25 Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now?, 160.

Ingrao 11

their frustrations and anger. They found this in Benedict Arnold. Editorials and letters between

friends, family, and colleagues fervently slandered Arnold depicting him with wicked imagery.

The Pennsylvania Packet published a letter addressed to Arnold.

"I took up my pen with an intent to shew [sic] a reflective glass, wherein you might at one view behold your actions; but soon found such a horrid ugly deformity in the outlines of your picture, that I was frightened at the sight, so the mirror [sic] dropped and broke to pieces! Each of which discovered you to be a gigantic [sic] overgrown monster, of such a variety of shapes, all over ulcerated, that it is in vain to attempt to describe them."26

As the history of heroes is rewritten so they are seen to have never done anything wrong,

history’s villains are penned so that they have never done anything right. Patriots were unable to

exact their punishment on Arnold in their lifetime but their altered history of his life as an

irredeemable villain was passed on to succeeding generations.27 Their damnation of Arnold was

everlasting because for generations he became the ultimate example of an enemy of the

Republic.

The Republican Motherhood:

In the new republic, free white males were forming new political identities. The

understanding of virtue and citizenry were also changing. The Revolutionary period established a

high regard for virtue and defined it as an individual’s commitment to the American republican

cause. “Virtue was above all the mark of ‘the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the

invincible soldier.’”28 Revolutionaries believed that social order could only be saved from the

chaos of selfish individuals by the adherence to virtue.29 The social climate emphasizing the

virtue of totally committing to the fight to separate from England and extolling the virtue of the

26 Royster, Charles. “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no.2 (1979), 185.27 Martin, Benedict Arnold, 431.28 Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meaning of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs 13, no.1 (Autumn 1987), 44.29 Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meaning of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs 13, no.1 (Autumn 1987), 41.

Ingrao 12

new republic were essential propaganda tools to rally the patriots and keep them from losing

heart and abandoning the cause. The importance placed on virtue in Revolutionary society made

it imperative to establish a political and social system that reflected these values; linking future

generations to the original goals and beliefs of the founding fathers was crucial to the

preservation of the new republic.

It is through the treason of Benedict Arnold that the colonists saw the frightening ease

with which virtue could be perverted.30 This action convinced the leaders of the American

Revolution that their future generations needed to have complete faith in the morals and virtues

of the republic.31 They believed corruption of citizens would be the most corrosive danger to the

foundation of a Republic. Therefore, the Revolutionary generation placed a heavy burden of

civic virtue on each individual citizen, but the greatest share of the burden rested on the

Republican mother.32 Mothers who instilled the virtues of citizenship into youngsters in the home

left no opening for corrupting influences thus preserving the ideals of the Republic for future

generations. The phenomenon of Republican Motherhood was born from the need to direct the

moral development of the Republic’s male citizenry from their earliest days so that treachery

among its citizens would never happen again.

The concepts of civic virtue and citizenship in Revolutionary America are integral to the

set of moral standards used to judge Benedict Arnold’s character as well as the basis for the

ideals upheld by Republican Mothers. The subject of virtue and civic virtue is intertwined with

the discussion of Republican Motherhood and the history of women during this period. The

characteristic of virtue in the early republic was identified with as female. It symbolized the ideal

woman and mother as possessing among other things purity of character. The need for the first 30 ibid., 184.31 Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect & Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 199.32 Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now?,132.

Ingrao 13

generation to have a strong and pure understanding of the new republic’s tenets translated into

the concept of civic virtue. Women’s role to rear virtuous children would now include the

principles of the new republic as well as the guidelines of virtue taught before. Benedict Arnold’s

connection with virtue and civic virtue is that he was catalysis for their ability to justify and

perpetuate their principles to each generation.

Linda Kerber created the term Republican Motherhood with the release of her ground

breaking research in the book Women of the Republic: Intellect & Ideology in Revolutionary

America in 1980.33 In her comprehensive study, Kerber asserts that women were given the

responsibility to nurture and protect the civic virtue of future generations of Americans as a way

to preserve traditional gender roles but also to give women some political power for their efforts

during the Revolutionary War. Since then a significant body of research has examined the

phenomenon of the mothers of the Revolutionary era schooling the youth in proper civic

morality. The foundation of the Republican Motherhood was crafted from the sociological

understanding of the family and manners found in the writings of the Scottish Enlightenment

theorists. These writings place women as a significant factor in the process of social

development and as major contributors to the development of the moral fabric of a society.34

The emergence of the Republican Motherhood theory in America came about as a result

of the popularity of Scottish Enlightenment theory among educated Americans. College curricula

taught the works of Hume and Smith extensively and popularized it among women.35 The

popularity of such works resulted in the creation of special volumes meant specifically for a

female audience. This diversity of readership among Americans increased the influence of this

school of thought and helped to establish the basic principles of Republican Motherhood. 33 Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect & Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 1-288.34 Zagarri, Rosemaire, “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother,”., 20235 ibid., 203.

Ingrao 14

The characteristics of an ideal Republican Mother were varied and ambitious. Her life

was to be dedicated to the service of instilling civic virtue in her husband and especially in her

sons.36 The movement esteemed basic qualities and characteristics such as frugality, competency,

confidence, and the ability to monitor the civic duty of husbands and their sons.

Clearly the moral education of the succeeding generation was of great importance to the

new republic and so the burden of educating future generations was given to those who were best

equipped to handle it, women. Women were seen as the logical administrators of this

responsibility because of their influence on children from the beginning of their life until they

attended school. Women, like the men of this period, also desired to form political identities of

their own and so embraced their new responsibility.

This necessary role in the new republic created an open opportunity for women. “Women

became increasingly seen as indispensable and active promoters of patriotism in men. As

mothers, young social companions, and wives, women came to be idealized as the source not

only of domestic morality but also of civic virtue itself.”37 They constructed an ideology of

citizenry that merged the domestic domain of women with the new political virtues of civic

responsibility. It built upon the well known Scottish Enlightenment theories and pushed beyond

them. Americans expanded the original parameters of the Scottish theory and forged an

American version that ultimately became the Republican Motherhood movement.

The ideology of the Revolution for women was conveyed to them through the medium

of the press in the form of articles and stories. Women were encouraged to use their virtuous

influence to alter male behavior in articles found in female specific publications. One magazine

declared that women needed to exert their influence over men “to make our young men, not in

36 ibid., 229.37 Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meaning of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs 13, no.1 (Autumn 1987), 46.

Ingrao 15

empty words, but in deed and in truth, republicans.”38 These articles suggested ways that women

could exert the most influence on the men in their lives. Titles like “Female Influence,” “Scheme

for Increasing the Power of the Fair Sex,” and “The Power of Beauty, and the Influence of the

Fair Sex might have in Reforming the Manners of the World” all attempted to make the case for

the unlimited power of the female influence.39 While the world arena kept women quiet and

considered them as decorative accessories, behind the scenes they were acknowledged as vitally

influential in swaying the male population toward civilized behavior. As a result of influencing

men’s behavior, women helped shape the larger society.40

The responsibility of the new roles allowed for more educational opportunities. Women

before the Republican Motherhood were not given educational opportunities beyond basic

literacy. In a letter to Abigail Adams, Mercy Otis Warren commented on the lack of education

for women despite their role in childrearing, “it is of the up most importance to society though

for a Number of Years it is almost wholly left to our uninstructed sex.”41 With the emergence of

the Republican Motherhood movement, women gained greater access to education to prepare

them to take on the great responsibility of ensuring that the future generations would display the

same morals as their revolutionary fathers.42

Benjamin Rush was a significant advocate for female education and a proponent of

Republican Motherhood. He was instrumental in co-founding the Young Ladies’ Academy in

Philadelphia and made numerous speeches on the topic of female education. He, like a majority

of educated Americans of the time, was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment. Specifically,

Lord Kames especially influenced Rush an influence clearly seen in the following comment on

38 Lewis, Jan. “The Republican Wife: Virtue and Seduction in the Early Republic.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3s 44, no.4 (October 1987), 70239 Lewis, Jan. “The Republican Wife.”701.40 Zagarri, Rosemaire, “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother,” American Quarterly 44, no.2 (1992), 202.41 Holton, Woody, Abigail Adams (New York: Free Press, 2009), 52.42 Kerber, Women of the Republic, 199.

Ingrao 16

married women:

Women should not only be instructed in the usual branches of female education, but they should be taught the principles of liberty and government; the obligations of patriotism should be inculcated upon them. The opinions and conduct of men are often regulated by the women in the most arduous enterprises of life; and their approbation is frequently the principal reward of the hero’s dangers, and the patriot’s toils. Besides, the first impressions upon the minds of children are generally derived from the women. Of how much consequence, therefore, it is in a republic, that they should think justly upon the great subjects of liberty and government!”43

Rush believed that the education of women served the ultimate goal of a strong republic.

Women well versed in republican virtue would be effective sounding boards for their husbands

and excellent teachers of the next generation of patriots. Rush’s redefinition of the role of

women connected the new republican principles of the period with changing principles of child

rearing. His paper, Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, argued that

patriotic republican citizens could be formed in “nurseries of wise and good men” in which “our

modes of teaching” were adapted “to the peculiar form of our government”.44 The Republican

Motherhood movement took up a philosophy for childrearing set forth by the wise men of the

new republic and utilized it when teaching their children.

Republican Motherhood espoused the belief that the virtuous guidance of republican

mothers would mold future generations into morally educated citizens of the republic. Women

believed their greatest political contribution to the new republic would be passing on the virtuous

values of Republicanism. “Through their roles as wives and mothers, as shapers of morals and

manners, women were seen to make a crucial, though indirect, contribution to the

commonwealth. They had a political role to play.”45 Women welcomed this opportunity for

43 Zagarri, Rosemaire, “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother,” American Quarterly 44, no.2 (1992), 206.44 Reinier, Jacqueline S. “Rearing the Republican Child: Attitudes and Practices in Post-Revolutionary Philadelphia,” The William and Mary Quarterly 39, no.1 (1982) 157.45 Zagarri, Rosemaire, “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother,” American Quarterly 44, no.2 (1992), 205.

Ingrao 17

service to their country.

Republican Motherhood Methods Used Benedict Arnold as a Negative Role Model:

The Republican Mothers took up guidelines for childrearing that were based on the

principles and practices of John Locke and were specifically geared toward building a virtuous

republican citizenry. Locke placed great importance on the rational adult as the goal of

childrearing, denying short-term pleasure in order to pursue long-term goals of virtue. Women of

the upper and middle classes in America readily took up those principles and guidelines that

meshed with their interest and social status.46 A critical principle of Lockean childrearing is

remembering that human rationality can easily be overruled by frailty, passion, and the

imagination. It needed to be diligently cultivated and guarded. This belief, led to the

development of educational tools to help mothers safe-guard their children’s fledgling

rationality.

Parents in the early republic gave children, mainly males, pocket sized collections of the

morality tales created during the Revolutionary period. This new niche market was pioneered by

the British printer John Newberry. Newberry used traditional folk figures such as Jack and the

Beanstalk and Tom Thumb to introduce stories of moral instruction which rewarded dutiful

children with esteem and punished disobedient children with disgrace. Newberry motivated

children to good behavior by promising social mobility and material success in many of his

stories. He discovered the popularity of little children’s books that contained folktales, riddles,

and moral stories. Newberry coined them as his Little Pretty Pocket-Books, some of the first

books designed to instruct and entertain children.47

Newberry originally published books in Britain for British children. When their

46 ibid., 151.47 Reinier, Jacqueline S. “Rearing the Republican Child: Attitudes and Practices in Post-Revolutionary Philadelphia,” The William and Mary Quarterly 39, no.1 (1982) 153.

Ingrao 18

popularity spread, American publishers pirated the stories and injected them with religious

teachings, prayers, and hymns to fit an American audience.48 Along with religion, these books

were adapted to American political thought and were instrumental in the early civic education of

republican children.

The popularity of instructional and entertaining books aided the effort to provide

republican children with materials that would reinforce their mothers’ teachings. Books such as

The Boy’s Scrapbook and The Boy’s Token are good examples of the basic textbooks used for

instruction in good citizenship. They consisted of morality tales that exhorted children to obey

their parents, study hard at school, and read the Bible.49 Mothers specifically provided this type

of reading material for their sons so that they could read stories about virtuous citizens that

reinforced her daily teachings. Just as these readings needed heroes to provide good examples for

the youngsters, there was a need for examples of villainous characters to illustrate the ruination

that could result from disobedient behavior in childhood.

Republican mothers inculcated the biased view of Arnold’s history into their children’s

conscience as a warning about where bad behavior would lead. They repeated songs and stories

about the virtuous leaders of their country often to young children. These stories focused on the

unifying elements of commitment and sacrifice necessary for the success of the Revolution, but

they also provided stories detailing the misdeeds leading up to Benedict Arnold’s treason. These

explanations took the form of groundless and exaggerated stories surrounding Benedict in his

childhood. They were based on the negative feelings of Americans directly after the West Point

plot was discovered.50 One particular song describes the apprehension of the British Major Andre

48 ibid., 155.49 Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now?, 157.50 Martin, Benedict Arnold, 12.

Ingrao 19

and how the patriots greatly regretted that it was not Arnold who hung from the gallows.51 In the

process of reviling Benedict Arnold, Patriots raised a British officer and sworn enemy to beloved

folk hero status. The drive to vilify Benedict Arnold was exceedingly strong.

Many collections of children’s stories contained tales that portrayed Benedict Arnold as

an unruly boy from birth. A common story of Benedict Arnold claimed he gave his virtuous

mother nothing but trouble. The altered history of Benedict Arnold served as a parable to warn

children against the peril that could ensue from destructive behavior such as his.52 The books

were illustrated with frightening and graphic pictures of Benedict Arnold’s misdeeds calculated

to scare children into compliant behavior. With these altered histories of young Benedict

Arnold’s misdeeds warned children to stay on the straight and narrow path of republican virtue

or else they would come to a bad end like Benedict Arnold did. One good example is a

woodcutting that depicted Arnold consorting with the Devil and included this inscription:

Mothers shall tell their children, and say-Arnold!-Arnold shall be the bugbear of their years,

Arnold!- vile, treacherous, and leagued with Satan.53

In a popular tale, “The Cruel Boy,” Arnold is said to have enjoyed robbing baby birds from the

nest and killing the young birds in front of the parents. The tales of depravity continue

throughout the edited history of his later youth. They focus on his reckless pursuit of fame and

fortune.54

The negative depictions of Arnold were not restricted to children’s books; the altered

versions of his childhood exploits also entered textbooks. School children now have two

centuries of American history to learn, yet social studies curricula still highlighted Arnold’s

51 Brand, Oscar, Songs of ’76: A Folksinger’s History of the American Revolution (New York: M. Evans & Company, 1972), 138-139.52 ibid., 12. 53 Murphy, The Real Benedict Arnold, 222.54 ibid., 13.

Ingrao 20

treason and the necessities of citizenship. A textbook from 1879 provides a good example of the

view of Benedict Arnold in comparison to the British Major Andre 100 years after Arnold’s

treason.

I am about to tell you of a good man and a bad man—of how the good man was hung and the bad man escaped; and how now, after nearly one hundred years, the one I remembered in song and story, with flowers spread over his grave, and children weeping as they hear his fate, and the other cursed wherever his name is spoken….. Young, handsome, accomplished, truthful, and kind-hearted, everybody loved [Andre]. It was not his own business that Andre went upon. His commander sent him, and every man in an army must obey orders…. Year after year…. Major Andre has been called a HERO.55

Textbooks held Benedict Arnold in such low esteem that they even considered a British soldier

more virtuous than Arnold. Despite the multitude of nefarious public figures in the interim,

Benedict Arnold remains the most notorious traitor to America.

One of the earliest textbooks that mentioned Benedict Arnold explained to readers “Satan

entered into the heart of Benedict… The demons of destruction laugh at thy defection, and enjoy

with malicious pleasure the consequence of thy fall.”56 Textbooks throughout American history

continue to display similar sentiments toward Arnold. An elementary textbook from 1901 states:

“he was early known as ‘a bad boy.’ From earliest childhood he was disobedient, cruel, reckless,

and profane, caring little or nothing for the good will of others.”57 Over one hundred years after

his treason at West Point, popular culture had altered his history entirely to depict him as an

irredeemable villain. This altered history shaped our collective memory of Benedict Arnold.

Unlike other villains at various junctures in our history whose notoriety rose and eventually

subsided, Benedict Arnold was successfully transformed into the quintessential American traitor.

55 Dodge, N.S. Stories of American History Teaching Lessons of Patriotism. (Lee & Shepard, 1879), 132, 138, 141.56 Johnson, Jacob. The American Revolution (1794. v. 2), 149, 158.57 Blaisdell, Albert F. The story of American History (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1901) 272.

Ingrao 21

The villainous folklore related to Benedict Arnold contrasted starkly with descriptions of

model citizen behavior. In an effort to engrain the proper behavior of citizens for the new nation,

advocates of the Republican Motherhood movement utilized the folklore. The Republican

Motherhood sustained the tales created by angry patriots after his defection to the British by

using Arnold as a cautionary tale to their children in their moral education. The movement

extolled heroic figures such as George Washington in comparison to Arnold’s treachery. The

new republic needed virtuous figures to emulate as well as treacherous figures to vilify. While

Benedict’s folklore portrayed him as corrupt and evil, George was seen as the embodiment of

public virtue.

Washington had befriended and supported Benedict Arnold before his treachery, but this

revised history protected him from this negative association. The effigies paraded through the

streets in 1780 portrayed Arnold with two faces. One face was that of an American General and

hero and the other was that of a servant of the devil, hungry for money and glory. This two faced

depiction of Arnold enabled Patriots to explain how a beloved figure such as George Washington

could have been deceived.58 Washington’s naïve trust in Arnold enhances his reputation as the

moral hero.59 Depictions such as these exaggerated the evil of the one character to accentuate the

nobility of the other. In order to save face for the noble character, the evil character must be

portrayed as so diabolically cunning that he could fool even the most esteemed hero of the day.

The tales about Washington, unlike Arnold’s, encouraged children to emulate his

irreproachable character traits and behavior. He was cast as a character with no faults and only

noble motivations. He exemplified the ideals of Republican virtue and selfless public service. A

wealthy landowner who could have remained home, he instead chose to serve his country. Once

58 Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now?, 130.59 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood” 1322.

Ingrao 22

the war was over, he returned home instead of seeking power.60 Just as Benedict Arnold’s history

was rewritten to show he was bad from the very start, George Washington’s history was

rewritten to show that he could do no wrong right from the very start.

One story written about George Washington, specifically for children, presented the first

president as the archetype of the good boy. He had “unwavering habits of regularity, temperance,

and industry,” which he learned obediently when they were taught to him early in his life and

this made him great. His great deeds and accolades in adulthood rewarded his childhood

obedience and compliance. In the revolution, he demonstrated his great ability to lead and to

persevere under extremely difficult circumstances. He sacrificed all self-indulgent pleasure and

pursuit of personal betterment for the long-term goal of independence for our nation. His virtue

and wisdom brought him the Lockean reward of the complete adoration of his countrymen.61

George Washington’s story of self sacrifice was published with a companion piece that

told the story of the traitor, Judas Iscariot. A traitor’s tale from the Bible the author reworked

Judas Iscariot’s character to represent a thinly veiled Benedict Arnold. In the tale Judas not only

betrays Christ but kills his father and marries his mother. The symbolism of the parents in the

story was not lost on the readers of the day. The betrayed father is meant to symbolize America

and the mother is supposed to represent Britain. In the conclusion of Judas’ story, his lack of

regulation and his life of disorder result in a punishment of utter public reprobation.62 In this

story the author elevates Benedict Arnold’s treachery to the well known level of Judas Iscariot of

Christian teachings and Oedipus of classical lore. The author makes the point that like Judas,

Benedict Arnold sold out a righteous cause for personal gain. He makes reference to two figures

in western culture, which would have been well known to his readers, in order to further 60 Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now?, 143.61 Reinier, Jacqueline S. “Rearing the Republican Child: Attitudes and Practices in Post-Revolutionary Philadelphia,” The William and Mary Quarterly 39, no.1 (1982) 156.62 ibid., 156.

Ingrao 23

denigrate Benedict Arnold by the association.

A much more famous example of George Washington folklore depicts him chopping

down a cherished cherry tree in his father’s garden. This story surfaced after Washington’s death

when biographies of his life began to be compiled. Once Washington chopped it down, he

famously stated, “I could not tell a lie,” when questioned about the destruction of the tree. In the

end he was not punished because his father valued his honesty above all else.63 The author

intended this story of George Washington to show that already in his youth he possessed the

virtues necessary to become a model citizen of the new nation. The nation embraced this

characterization of their leader because it embodied the virtuous ideals of the new republic.

Despite some boyish high jinks, George had proper respect for his father the moral character to

admit his mistakes and submit to just punishment. Washington’s glorification by the Republican

Motherhood has only made it harder to rectify Arnold’s historical reputation.

Many fabricated tales of Benedict Arnold’s childhood were concocted following his fall

from grace and continually told to new generations of children. Following the two step process

of selectively emphasizing certain events in his life and analyzing his motives, his biography was

altered. Stories from his childhood surfaced depicting him as an incorrigible and evil child. He

was accused of killing birds for fun and tormenting local children by old neighbors and

acquaintances.64 Anyone with the slightest connection to him was eager to tell a story of how evil

they knew he was when they knew him. His disputes with the Continental Congress and other

leaders in the Continental army were re-examined and judged in a different light. These

alterations to Arnold’s biography simplified and disguised the complexity that was involved in

their recreation of his history. Arnold’s entire life came under such close scrutiny, because the

63 Mason Locke Weems,. The Life of Washington. A new edition with primary documents and introduction by Peter S. Onuf (Armonk, New York and London: M.E. Sharpe), 8-10.64 Martin, Benedict Arnold, 12.

Ingrao 24

political climate at the time of his betrayal badly needed a negative example to warn people

against letting self-interest or weariness weaken steadfast devotion to the Revolutionary cause.

Arnold’s betrayal blindsided colonists at a time of weakness and that affected the intensity by

which the American public shaped the moral evaluation of the traitor that persists long after his

death.65

These tales were very useful to the Republican Motherhood because they depicted the

consequences of childhood immoral behavior left unchecked. The repetition of these stories

made their veracity unquestioned, and both mothers and authors of history quickly picked them

up for the teaching of moral education to children. The Republican Motherhood’s mission has

been extraordinary in its longevity and endurance. The cautionary tale created in a time of great

upheaval lasted through war and peace, prosperity and poverty, and throughout the centuries.

They succeeded in making a permanent place for Benedict Arnold in America’s collective

memory.

Arnold’s Negative Image Lives on After the Republican Motherhood:

The value of loyalty to country and republican virtues are still being passed down to each

new generation, but women are no longer the sole teachers of these virtues. Women eventually

became liberated from the home, but the need for an educated citizenry still exists. As a result,

the public school system assumed the Republican Motherhood’s responsibilities. Women, who

make up the majority of the teachers in the public school system, are still playing a significant

role in the service to the republican nation.66 The perspective they provide will be what each

successive generation will consider to be the truth and the cycle will start over again with their

children.

65 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood” 1312.66 Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meaning of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs 13, no.1 (Autumn 1987) 57

Ingrao 25

The longevity of democracy depends on our future generations maintaining the same set

of republican virtues. The characteristics of good citizenship are displayed prominently in

classrooms and are a part of elementary social studies curriculum. The stories told about

infamous traitors, especially Arnold, and folk heroes of mythical proportions like George

Washington are continually used to illustrate the elemental values of our nation which have not

changed since the Revolutionary War. The intense rhetoric and comparisons to the Devil have

subsided, but the original sentiment toward Benedict Arnold persists. There is still a commonly

held belief that as a country we must always be vigilant and hold men like Arnold in contempt

while emulating men like George Washington.

The historical reputation of a prominent figure directly affects America’s collective

memory of that figure. The history that the reputation is built upon is only a “settled” account of

the past, not the specific facts of the events. It is also critical to distinguish that history is a set of

narratives being taught but collective memory is how those narratives are recalled.67 Collective

memory is how society has interpreted the narratives and chosen to commemorate them in a

public forum. An example of this is the historical narratives taught to students about the political

impact of Abraham Lincoln. Students are taught of his presidency and leadership but this is not

what defines his collective memory. Abraham Lincoln’s collective memory is that of “honest

Abe.” This one anecdote regarding his character has become his defining feature and one of the

most commonly remembered fact about Lincoln. Unlike Arnold, Lincoln’s defining

characteristic has provided him with a positive collective memory and glowing historical

narratives.

Benedict Arnold suffers on both accounts; the selective historical narrative of his

biography and the even more selective collective memory of those narratives have remained

67 ibid., 5.

Ingrao 26

exceedingly negative. In his lifetime, he was unsuccessful in achieving a more balanced account

of his accomplishments, and when his selective historical narrative became so intrinsically tied to

the formation of the collective national morality, our collective memory was doomed to be an

exaggerated negative impression. Charles Horton Cooley expresses this dilemma the best. “Fame

may or may not represent what men were, but it always represents what humanity needs for them

to have been.”68 Arnold’s villainous character served as an integral teaching tool in molding

generations of young Americans into loyal citizens. A balanced view of his life and place in

history is not compatible with the role his collective memory still plays today in the teaching of

civics to the youth of America. The acknowledgement of the two sides of Benedict Arnold

directly conflicts with the citizenship rhetoric which is still being taught in schools today. Since

his historical reputation is highly contentious, schools have continued to ignore the information.

The real story of Benedict Arnold has become an inconvenient truth, so resistance to a balanced

account of his role in the early years in our country is understandable.

It is only through Benedict Arnold’s collective historical reputation that we come to

know him and that reputation is very powerful. Our thoughts of an event or time period can be

deeply clouded by how memories of that history are shared. The continual sharing of Benedict’s

bad reputation, rather than any of his ordinary and nobler deeds has defined the way in which our

society values him as an individual. Our society emphasizes historical figures that represent our

ideals and those we wish to avoid. Our collective understanding of what we uphold as good

Americans citizens is a uniting force in a sometimes divided community. Commemorating

individuals like George Washington and reviling citizens like Benedict Arnold reflects the desire

of the community to strengthen and recommit themselves all over again to the set of ideals and

68 Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order, (1964): 342, quoted in Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 6

Ingrao 27

social boundaries first crafted during the American Revolution.69 When these historical figures

become icons they become symbolic representations of communal values. The truth of the sum

total of their individual accomplishments and true identity is lost because the instructive value of

their selective history is so important to the entire community.

Experts such as historians determine the important points that a citizen would need to

know if they want to be “culturally literate.” These abbreviated facts are continually reinforced

through the socially sanctioned avenues of the media and school systems. In schools, students are

provided approved national narratives that select the important “facts” they should understand in

each grade level. School systems teach this chronology with the hope that in the end students

have received the most important information necessary to be a productive member of the social

and political structure. The ultimate goal is for history lessons to provide moral grounding for the

society.70 With that, the expectation of learning history for students is that they learn lessons of

character, motive, and justifications for the legitimacy of the nation-state and associated

institutions.71 This collective societal memory of our heritage is constructed with the selective

history our society has orchestrated over the years.

These educational expectations are the institutionalized heirs to the original intentions of

the Republican Motherhood movement. The Republican Motherhood took their recent history of

Benedict Arnold and used it in their narratives as a method of moral education to reinforce the

legitimacy of the infant republic. This is not unusual. In fact, it is to be expected. Public figures

are continually used as examples to teach citizens how they should think about issues and create

69Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 7.70 ibid., 6.71 ibid., 5

Ingrao 28

a common morality within society.72 They engineered the need for historical education as a

necessary moral skill in order for students to function in the new republic.73

A Factual Chronology of Benedict Arnold’s Life:

The historical community is gradually acknowledging the complexity of Benedict

Arnold’s place in American history. Biographers such as Willard Sterne Randall and James

Nelson have recently released new books providing a fresh analysis on Arnold’s life.74 This

reexamination of Arnold’s memory, unfortunately, has not affected the information being

provided to students in elementary school classes. The recent observations of historians are

disconnected from the material being taught in schools. This is unfortunate since the current

national standard for teaching historical issues promotes a student’s capacities to understand

democratic citizenry and opens opportunities to consider the moral convictions contributing to

the social actions taken in history.75 This is a worthy standard for students to meet if given a

balanced historical curriculum.

A balanced account of Benedict Arnold would provide an excellent study. In an interview

with Arnold biographer Steve Sheinkin, he discusses the mindset of textbook editors on the

subject of Benedict Arnold. “My textbook editors said, "Benedict Arnold makes us nervous."

They looked like they were in physical pain. "It's not that you can't talk about him, but are you

making it clear he's a 'bad guy'? We don't do well with contradiction, and our heroes and villains

are often much more complicated than they're presented.”76 The choices of publishers in 72 ibid., 6.73 ibid., 574 James Nelson. Benedict Arnold’s Navy (Ragged Mountain Press, 2007). Willard Sterne Randall. Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor (Dorset Press, 2001).Steve Sheinkin. The Notorious Benedict Arnold: A True Story of Adventure, Heroism & Treachery. (Flashpoint, 2010).75 Historical Issues. National Center for History in the Schools at UCLA, http://nchs.ucla.edu/Standards/historical-thinking-standards-1/5.-historical-issues (November 13, 2011).76 Jennifer Brown. “Curriculum Connections” School Library Journal. December 7, 2010. http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/newslettersnewsletterbucketcurriculumconnections/887513-442/benedict_arnold_the_bruce_willis.html.csp, (November 13, 2011).

Ingrao 29

representing historical figures like Benedict Arnold have created a vicious circle of teaching

incomplete histories to each successive generation.

This gap is the result of many curricular issues in the modern educational system but also

stems from the prototype for citizenship instruction set forth by the Republican Motherhood

movement over two hundred years ago. The work done by this movement provided the blue print

for teaching students about American citizenship and history today. The Republican Mothers

molding of Benedict Arnold’s legacy is responsible for the way Benedict Arnold’s place in

history is taught to American school children today. A factual accounting of his life outside the

lens of the Republican Motherhood is still difficult to find today; I will assemble such an

accounting here.

From birth, Arnold’s ascent to prominence was marked with roadblocks and

disappointment. Born in Norwich, Connecticut on January 14, 1741 to Hannah and Benedict

Arnold IV, Benedict Arnold began life in a very prominent family. As a younger son, Arnold’s

father had not inherited land but had been apprenticed into barrel making. Despite being a

younger son, Arnold’s father managed to achieve success as a merchant. His change of

occupation from barrel making to being a merchant allowed him to become a prominent citizen

of Norwich and gave him the opportunity to marry into a well-connected local family. The

marriage of Arnold’s parents restored this lowly branch of the Arnolds back into the upper tier of

society and provided Benedict with opportunities his father had never been given. 77

Benedict benefited greatly from being the oldest son of a wealthy trader and received a

privileged private school education. This caliber of education was rare in the colonies and his

family had intended to prepare him for further study at Yale College. Arnold’s father believed

that a Yale education could solidify the return of his branch of the Arnold family to social

77 Clare Brandt, The Man in the Mirror: A Life of Benedict Arnold (New York: Random House, 1994), 4.

Ingrao 30

prominence. This path to success was quickly cut off, however. At the age of fourteen Arnold

was removed from school when his family could no longer afford it. His father had driven his

business into the ground with his alcoholism.78

When Benedict’s family could no longer afford his privileged education, his mother’s

family, the Lathrops, apprenticed him in their apothecary shop. This change of profession

devastated Arnold and squashed his desire for a Yale education and the prominent place among

the intellectual elite he so desired. 79 After apprenticing for seven years as an apothecary,

Benedict struck out on his own. Arnold moved to New Haven, Connecticut and opened his own

apothecary and book shop in 1762. He was determined to achieve the prominence he believed he

deserved through his own initiative. In addition to becoming a merchant like his father, Arnold

directly acquired his merchandise by sailing to Canada and the Caribbean.80 Benedict Arnold was

resourceful, ambitious, and determined to succeed. Due to the experiences of his youth he was

accustomed to overcoming adversity in order to achieve his goals as well as adapting as

circumstances changed.

Arnold’s new business ventures came at a very inopportune time. The Sugar Act of 1764

and The Stamp Act of 1765 severely impacted American commerce. Growing tensions over the

taxation between the colonists and the British government stunted his fledgling business’

potential. The British government had begun to enforce laws prohibiting the New England

colonies from directly trading with the French West Indies, which was the lifeblood of Arnold’s

ventures. Because of these restrictions, Arnold resorted to smuggling in order to maintain his

business.

78 ibid., 5-6.79 ibid., 6.80 ibid., 10.

Ingrao 31

While his activities appeared to be the actions of a staunch Patriot, his private

commitment to the cause was less solid. He had a successful business that depended on the

availability of European goods to trade. His financial incentive to smuggle during this time

coincidentally endeared him to his Connecticut neighbors as a courageous defender of liberty.81

His neighbors considered these actions to be just and they applauded his civil disobedience in

defense of trade and the natural rights of self government. 82

Along with the desire to achieve monetary security, Arnold wanted recognition among

the social elite. In an effort to expand his business connections and social circle, he accepted

membership to the Free Masons in April 1765. In addition to the numerous local benefits of

joining such a society, the Masons also allowed Arnold to expand his connections to include

notable Free Masons outside of New Haven. Famous Free Masons of the time included men such

as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.83 Joining a society filled with prominent Patriot

figures brought Arnold into the hub of revolutionary activities.

As the British government closed the port of Boston in reaction to the destruction of tea

in the harbor, local communities organized militia in order to prepare for the possibility of war.

Arnold turned his attention to colonial politics and officially joined the revolutionary cause in a

large group of New Haven men in the local militia in 1774.84 Benedict wanted to return to his

ancestral roots of public service and to be seen as a patriarch of Connecticut society. The Patriot

cause presented an avenue both to fulfill his desire to stop the British threat to his livelihood and

to fulfill his thirst for admiration, glory, and a permanent place in colonial society.

81 James Kirby Martin, Benedict Arnold: Revolutionary Hero An American Warrior Reconsidered (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 44.82 ibid., 11-1483 ibid., 49.84 ibid., 61.

Ingrao 32

Arnold always seized upon any opportunity to increase his position within the

Continental Army to demonstrate his leadership skills. His ambition did not result from spying or

gathering information for the British as some later believed. He desired personal notoriety and

achievement. For example, in a chance meeting on his way to Massachusetts in 1775, Arnold

spoke with Connecticut patriot Colonel Samuel Holden Parsons.85 From the Colonel, Benedict

learned that the fortifications at Ticonderoga were crumbling and artillery pieces were there for

the taking. Arnold believed himself to be the leader to accomplish the task and to distinguish

himself as an asset to the Continental Army’s leadership.

Arnold sought out Dr. Joseph Warren of the Massachusetts Committee of Safety upon his

arrival in Cambridge and made a case for leading an attack on the fort. The Massachusetts

Committee of Safety was an extra legal administrative body for the provincial Congress. These

committees provided a revolutionary infrastructure and observed rough legal procedures to

govern their local communities.86 Arnold persuaded the committee to consider him for the

mission based on his previous knowledge of the area around the fort garnered from his trading

experience. He was determined to distinguish himself as the best-qualified candidate for the

mission.

The sense of urgency to capture Ticonderoga and its artillery before the British troops

reinforced their position was acute. The siege of Boston from April 1775 to March 1776 was

underway and the Patriots desperately needed heavy artillery to combat the British. The

committee sought strategic positioning; Arnold sought personal glory and admiration. The

committee voted to place their confidence in Arnold’s “judgment, fidelity, and valor” by naming

85 James Kirby Martin, Benedict Arnold: 64.86 Breen, T.H. American Insurgents American Patriots: The Revolution of the People. (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010),18.

Ingrao 33

him Colonel in the service of Massachusetts and of the Ticonderoga mission.87 Benedict Arnold

took up the command with pleasure and welcomed the challenges it presented.

Arnold not only had command of the Ticonderoga mission from the committee but he

was also responsible for recruiting men along the way to New York. Unbeknownst to Arnold,

Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, as well as Edward Mott and his ragtag band of

Connecticut men were also planning an attack at the same time. Ethan Allen was instrumental in

the founding of the state of Vermont as well as being a prominent patriot, farmer, writer, land

spectator and leader of the Green Mountain Boys. The Green Mountain boys were a militia

organization formed in 1760s to keep New York from controlling the land between the New

York and New Hampshire provinces.

Upon his arrival to the area near the fort, Arnold encountered Allen and the Green

Mountain Boys and learned they planned to attack the fort as well. Arnold firmly believed that as

an enlisted officer he had the right to command the attack. However circumstances did not

support Arnold’s claim. His quest for recognition blinded him to protocol and earned him

lifelong enemies. He was moving through the Green Mountain Boys’ own territory and they

outnumbered his Massachusetts’ recruits.88 He had neither the numbers nor the jurisdiction to

demand that he spearhead the operation. Arnold reluctantly joined forces with Allen and Mott

but remained determined to accomplish his own agenda. He intended to distinguish himself with

his gift for military strategy despite the frustration of sharing the command with Allen and Mott

whom he did not see as disciplined enough to carry out the mission satisfactorily.

On May 10, 1775 Ticonderoga fell to the Americans within ten minutes of the initial

attack.89 Arnold’s main concern was securing and transporting the British artillery from

87 ibid., 65.88 ibid., 69.89 ibid., 71.

Ingrao 34

Ticonderoga back to the American troops in Boston. The unruly and self interested Green

Mountain Boys as well as Mott’s men were content to pillage and celebrate their victory. Arnold

fought for control, but was unsuccessful in asserting his authority. This conflict with Allen and

Mott resulted in the two men sending false reports of his actions and character to officials in the

Continental Congress in an attempt to diminish Arnold’s part in the victory.

During his military career he constantly strove to prove himself a leader and establish his

place in the new government. He continually offered to take command on difficult mission such

as the Quebec campaign and the attack on Fort Ticonderoga. Often, Arnold faced people who

sought to destroy his chance of advancement and to tarnish his reputation. Two of Arnold’s most

ardent opponents were John Brown and Ethan Allen. John Brown served as a courier between

the colonies and Quebec prior to the war but was later a Colonel in the Continental Army. Allen

and Brown both accused Arnold of wrong doing including the use of army resources for his

merchant business.

Some of the accusations did have merit, particularly those accusing Arnold of planning to

buy goods in Canada and sell them in the inflated markets of the colonies. John Brown wrote a

petition to the Second Continental Congress which was read by Horatio Gates alleging Arnold

committed 13 “crimes” and should be arrested.90 Although these accusations had some validity

these activities were not uncommon among other merchants in the same position. Because of his

previous smuggling during the 1760’s, his enemies were easily provided with ammunition to use

against him. Several times over the duration of the war, charges were made against him, but not

until right before his final treasonous acts was he cleared of all previous charges. The constant

accusations and attacks did wear on his determination to continue to support the Revolutionary

cause that might not always align with his personal goals.

90 Murphy, Jim, The Real Benedict Arnold (New York: Clarion Books, 2007), 117.

Ingrao 35

In hindsight, the accusations of Arnold’s enemies might look like early warnings of the

traitorous acts to early interpreters of Arnold’s life. Arnold’s behavior was more selfish than

inherently evil. Patriots likened him to the devil but his actions speak to a much more common

human failing. Arnold’s ruthless pursuit of his personal goals and ambitions encountered endless

opposition from individuals like Brown and Gates. This continual onslaught of accusations

began his disillusioned with the Patriots and the cause.

Arnold never fully supported either side of the political dispute because he was always

operating with his own agenda. He did not seek the downfall of the enemy so much as the

advancement of his personal objectives. His belief that he was continually mistreated, ignored,

and unfairly compensated by Continental Congress provided the motivation to change sides.

Throughout his life, when Arnold was faced with roadblocks, he changed course to stay on track

in achieving his personal goals. His reaction to these deterrents was predictable. Before he

decided to switch sides, he had been a valued but malcontented commander in the Continental

Army. He was not alone in his frustration with the Continental Congress. The entire Continental

Army at one point or another throughout the war went months without pay and forced to spend

their own money did not get compensated for their expenses.91

Horatio Gates in particular found Arnold a threat. Gates likely felt threatened by

Arnold’s recent success in the Lake Champlain region where he earned Washington’s praise.92

His adversaries constantly sought to discredit Arnold. The efforts of John Brown and Moses

Hazen were a consistent threat to Arnold’s image. They continually petitioned for Congress to

remove Arnold from command and arrest him. These men were first involved with Arnold in the

taking of Ticonderoga and their volatile encounters led to charges being made against Arnold’s

91 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold” Social Forces 73, no.4 (1995): 1319.92 Murphy., The Real Benedict Arnold., 118.

Ingrao 36

conduct.93 Arnold deeply believed that any disagreement with Congress resulted from the

meddling of his enemies.

Threats to his image distressed Arnold because he wanted to be known for his exemplary

skills of leadership and strategy. Above all, he wanted to be thought of as a gentleman. His

standing in the community was of paramount importance to Arnold and he remained confident in

his own ability. He furiously defended himself to the Massachusetts Committee of Safety and

boldly solicited a command to further the American efforts in the Lake Champlain area. He then

exercised command successfully as part of the naval activity on Lake Champlain. Next, Arnold

set his sights on the Quebec province and petitioned the Continental Congress to give him

command of such an operation.94 During this campaign Arnold achieved the military notoriety

that he craved.

General Washington granted Benedict Arnold an appointment as Colonel in the

Continental Army and an assignment to the Canada campaign. Washington hoped that an

invasion would cause the British General Carlton to abandon either Quebec or Montreal thus

leaving the remaining city to be easily seized. George Washington instructed Arnold to move

1,000 men through Maine on the Kennebac and Dead Rivers and then follow the Chaudiere

River to the St. Lawrence to get to the Quebec province.95 The arrival of Arnold’s men from the

north would surprise the city of Quebec. The journey was treacherous and riddled with hunger,

cold, and disease. When Arnold and his men arrived in Quebec on December 2, 1775, only 650

men remained.96 Arnold lost almost half of his men to hunger, exposure to the elements, or

disease. The element of surprise was lost as well because the Americans were not able to attack

93 Brandt, The Man in the Mirror, 80.94 ibid., 91. 95 Dave R. Palmer, George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2006), 116.96 Oscar Brand, Songs of ’76: A Folksinger’s History of the American Revolution (New York: M. Evans & Company, 1972), 54.

Ingrao 37

until December 30, 1775. The assault failed and a large number of American soldiers were taken

prisoner. Although wounded in the leg, Arnold was able to retreat with a small group of his men.

It was a dispiriting and humiliating campaign for Benedict Arnold.

His inability to elicit a victory at Quebec inspired a resident of the city to write a new

song set to the tune of “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” It is entitled “Arnold Is As Brave a Man.”97 The

lyrics poked fun at Arnold and his New England troops beginning in the first verse.

“Arnold is as brave a man as ever dealt in horses,And now commands a num’rous clan of New England jackasses”

Despite the loss at Quebec, the sheer feat of moving his men in the face of significant hardships

did not go unnoticed. The members of the Continental Congress compared his march to that of

Hannibal’s legendary crossing of the Alps and they awarded him a promotion to Brigadier

General.98

Benedict Arnold continued to find success in his military pursuits with each new

campaign he undertook. He later fought and was wounded in the decisive second battle of

Saratoga. After first being over looked for promotion in February 1777, the Continental

Congress rewarded his accomplishments by a promotion to Major General in May of 1777.99 The

leg re-injury that he sustained at Saratoga made it impossible for him to continue in a field

command. The colonists hailed Arnold as a Patriotic hero for the monumental effort he showed

in the battle. Despite Arnold’s growing dissatisfaction with Congress and a permanently

damaged leg, his military skill and leadership were considered a valuable asset in the Continental

Army

97 ibid., 54.98 Palmer, George Washington and Benedict Arnold, 132. 99ibid., xii.

Ingrao 38

Arnold took command as the Commandant of Philadelphia in 1778 as a way to utilize his

skills even if he was unable to command troops in the field. This position did not satisfy Arnold

who had reached the end of his tolerance for the Continental Congress and his enemies. Arnold

expressed his disdain in a letter to Joshua Hett Smith, “It’s hopeless to expect anything from

Congress. They can neither pay nor victual the army… Look how they treated me; here I am,

having fought for my country’s battles, and I find myself with a ruined constitution, this leg

rendered useless to me; at the end of the war, where shall I look for justice? I tell you, these

wretches who’ve crept into Congress are below contempt!”100 Arnold reconciled himself to his

decision to turn against the revolutionary cause as his frustration and disillusionment with the

Continental Congress grew. Arnold’s decision to switch sides occurred only one year into his

command as Commandant of Philadelphia and less than a year after he remarried. Arnold had

convinced himself that the leaders in Congress diverged from the original cause justifying his

plan to change sides.

While in Philadelphia, Arnold met and married his second wife Peggy Shippen. Peggy

was the daughter of an affluent Philadelphia merchant and rumored loyalist. When the British

army occupied Philadelphia, Peggy was a favorite among the officers. She struck up a close

friendship with a Major Andre. After their marriage, Peggy became Benedict’s needed conduit to

strike a profitable deal with the British. Arnold just needed to offer something valuable to gain

enough leverage to receive the proper compensation he believed he deserved.

Both the British and the Continental Army coveted the control of West Point on the

Hudson River. The army that occupied this post controlled movements up and down the river

and had the potential to cut off supply chains in the Hudson Valley. In 1780, the Continental

Army controlled West Point and Arnold sought to gain command of the post. Once in command

100 Cornel Lengyel, I, Benedict Arnold (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1960), 90.

Ingrao 39

of West Point, he would be able to strike a profitable deal with the British. He sought the

material wealth to establish himself in the upper echelons of Tory society, since he believed the

Patriots were prejudiced against him and he would never be granted the adulation he craved.

Since he believed the Revolutionary cause had gotten badly off track, he saw no problem with

abandoning his allegiance to it.

Benedict Arnold actively campaigned for and received the Command at West Point that

he had sought, with the intention of using it as a bargaining tool in negotiating a defection to the

British Army. His plan did not go smoothly because the British ship carrying Major Andre his

contact person came under attack. The defection unraveled and Arnold’s treason came to light

without having been successfully executed. Negative reaction was immediate and violent.

Early in the Revolution, Benedict Arnold was a celebrated hero in the Revolutionary

cause. Popular memory has forgotten those honorable years of service in the Continental Army

and his contributions to the United States prior to his defection to the British. From this point

forward there was no balanced view of Benedict Arnold. His positive contributions were all

wiped from the public discourse. By reversing his political allegiance to pursue his personal

goals, Arnold confirmed the negative characterizations his enemies had created over the years.

His years of service, dedication, and hard work for the advancement of the colonies were

forgotten as if it had never happened.

General Greene described it best in a letter to a friend, “Were you ever more astonished

in your life? Love of parade and thirst for gold has proven his ruin… How black, how despised,

loved by none, hated by all- once his country’s idol now her horror!”101 Arnold’s great military

exploits had been acknowledged by the Continental Army and cheered by the public but quickly

101 Lengyel, I Benedict Arnold, 188.

Ingrao 40

forgotten once he betrayed the Republic. Arnold was not only demonized but also transformed

into a caricature – a one dimensional character with a single-mindedly traitorous agenda.

Benedict Arnold felt compelled to post explanations for his actions. He saw himself as a

man of integrity and believed in the justness of his actions. Arnold felt the need to justify his

decision to address the patriots in a letter to Sir Clinton. Arnold argued that for the sake of his

family and friends he needed to appeal to the public.102 He saw his reversal as the moral response

to the corruption and injustices he witnessed at the hands of the members of the Continental

Congress.

In a letter he wrote to George Washington immediately after fleeing West Point, Arnold

tried to explain, “The same principle of love to my country actuates my present conduct,

however it may appear inconsistent to the world, whom so seldom judge right of any man’s

actions.”103 In an address issued to the American people in the Rivington’s Royal New York

Gazette on October 1780 entitled “To the Inhabitants of America,” he outlined several points of

disagreement.104 He found it distasteful that the Patriots were forming an alliance with France,

the country they had naturally hated only until recently. He also took issue with the Declaration

of Independence because he did not believe in the complete break from Britain that the document

declared. Arnold proclaimed that he had held firmly to his duty to follow his conscience after

finding he disagreed so greatly with the actions of the Continental Congress.

At the time Benedict Arnold attempted to hand over West Point to the British in 1780, the

American Revolution had been raging for over five years. The American public was becoming

weary of fighting and losing sight of the ideals they had enthusiastically rallied around in 1776.

102 Sir Henry Clinton papers, William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, v. 204 fol. 24.103 Brian F. Carso Jr., Whom Can We Trust Now? The Meaning of Treason in the United States, from the Revolution through the Civil War (New York: Lexington Books, 2006) 153.104 Sir Henry Clinton papers, vol.125 fol.20.

Ingrao 41

Throughout the years of the war there was a consistent call for voluntarily sacrificing safety,

ease, and self interest by citizens to defend their liberty and virtue. Young men were drawn in by

the Patriotism but also were recruited by advertisements and state officials to fill mandatory

quotas. “Virtuous Americans” were called upon to give “firm and manly support” to the war

effort but the response was lackluster.105 Citizens valued these ideals but did very little to live by

them.106 As the war dragged on, Patriots’ resources and patience stretched to the limit. The

initially inspiring rhetoric was becoming ever more disconnected from their personal experiences

with little experience of reward or advancement of the cause despite their sacrifices.

While Benedict Arnold’s actions appear clear-cut from our modern perspective, the

reality of the time was muddled. The modern day concepts of citizenship and nationality did not

exist in Revolutionary times..107 The loyalties of the North American population were confused

and divided. Inhabitants of the continent had arrived from across Europe. Often these immigrants

arrived with ample reason to want to disassociate themselves from their motherland. Their

national loyalties remained in flux. “America” was a very new concept which made it hard for

anyone to conceive of allegiance and loyalty to this brand new nation. Until the Declaration of

Independence, the Patriots were still considered British subjects. The British considered any

individual uncooperative to the pursuits of the Crown to be treacherous because they considered

them to be British. As a Patriot, Benedict Arnold’s commission in the Continental army would

have branded him a traitor to the British but not in his own mind if he believed himself to be

loyal to his new country. Acts of treason, loyalty, and betrayal were all in the eye of the

beholder.108

105 Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meaning of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs 13, no.1 (Autumn 1987),44.106 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood,” 1314.107 Wright, Esmond, “A Patriot for Whom?,” History Today 36, no.10 (1986), 31.108 Wright, Esmond, “A Patriot for Whom?” 30.

Ingrao 42

The research in the areas of virtue and civic virtue reveals a debate concerning the

boundaries of citizenship and loyalty in the colonies during the war. Who was considered a

traitor and why? What are the bounds of citizenry when a nation is not officially defined? Arnold

was not the only colonist straddling the fence financially between the British and the colonists,

sometimes profiting from a relationship with the British and at other times cashing in on dealings

with the colonists. Charles Royster and Brian Carso both provide excellent examinations of the

meaning of loyalty during this turbulent time.109 Royster specifically points out how Benedict

Arnold’s treason calls into question the standards of civic virtue in Revolutionary America. As

well as provides a basis for discussing how revolutionary leaders and mothers formed the basis

of our concepts of civic virtue and loyalty.110

The research in the areas of virtue and civic virtue reveals a debate concerning the

boundaries of citizenship and loyalty in the colonies during the war. Who was considered a

traitor and why? What are the bounds of citizenry when a nation is not officially defined? Arnold

was not the only colonist straddling the fence financially between the British and the colonists,

sometimes profiting from a relationship with the British and at other times cashing in on dealings

with the colonists. Charles Royster and Brian Carso both provide excellent examinations of the

meaning of loyalty during this turbulent time. Royster specifically points out how Benedict

Arnold’s treason calls into question the standards of civic virtue in Revolutionary America. As

well as provides a basis for discussing how revolutionary leaders and mothers formed the basis

of our concepts of civic virtue and loyalty.

109 Royster, Charles. “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no.2 (1979), 163-193., Carso Jr., Brian F., Whom Can We Trust Now? The Meaning of Treason in the United States, from the Revolution through the Civil War (New York: Lexington Books, 2006), 7-181.110 Royster, Charles, “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” 165.

Ingrao 43

Arnold strongly believed that only reconciliation with Britain would solve the corruption

he had witnessed in the Continental Congress. Seeing the cause to be hopeless, the only way he

could help his country was to end the bloodshed.111 He hoped that his justifications for standing

up against such corruption would influence his countrymen to follow his lead and not be

misguided by the revolutionary cause. 112

This attempt by Arnold to salvage his reputation among those he had deeply betrayed was

futile. Neither the American public nor the British government believed that Arnold’s intentions

were pure. The accusations of greed and self interest were a constant. “His replies to the

multitude of charges against him had never been sympathetically received by soldiers and

patriots. Now they became the prattle of a liar howling down the wind.”113 In his drive for

adoration and greatness Arnold ultimately alienated the very people he desired approval from.

In his correspondence near the end of the war with Sir Henry Clinton, Arnold requested

the General to affirm his original and honorable intentions in changing sides. He begged the

General to confirm he acted out of principle or deny his greed in changing sides. Sir Clinton

affirmed to Arnold that he completely believed he was acted on principle rather than greed.114 Sir

Clinton was one of few friends or allies that Arnold would find with the British. Americans

obviously did not trust him because of his attempt to turn over West Point, but neither did the

British.

He had committed treason once, what was to stop him from committing it again and

rejoining the Americans? He could not even find sympathy from Silas Deane, a fellow American

111 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold” Social Forces 73, no.4 (1995): 1319.112 Benedict Arnold, “To the Inhabitants of America,” Rivington’s Royal New York Gazette, Archiving Early America, http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/writings/arnold/arnlet1.html.113 Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 43.114 Sir Henry Clinton papers, William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

Ingrao 44

outcast. Silas Deane initially supported the Revolution and served as a delegate to Congress and

France as a special agent. Like Arnold, Deane encountered the criticism of Congress for his

mismanagement of funds while in France. Unlike Arnold, Deane committed no outright act of

treason. It was only through the publication of private letters that his disillusionment with the

Revolution became public and he was barred from returning to America.

Their similar situations should have spurred a friendship upon Arnold’s arrival in

England. However, Deane chose to socially humiliate him by purposely ignoring him at events in

London to make a distinction between his own actions and those of Arnolds.115 Arnold was held

in such low regard that even Deane, a fellow loyalist, who was also labeled as a traitor felt he

could not associate with him. Benedict Arnold’s act of treason had been married with the earlier

accusations of misconduct resulting in Arnold being branded the quintessential traitor. His

reputation became so abhorrent that his conduct even repulsed other known traitors.

The correspondence between Clinton and Arnold reveals the constant struggle Arnold

engaged in to defend his actions and the reality and that he could turn to very few people for

support. Joel Headly’s description perfectly described Arnold’s unenviable situation. “The traitor

has now no advocate, and nothing can be said against him that is not readily believed. In every

act of his life is found some lurking treason and every trait of his character is blackened. This

cannot be complained of- it is just the reward of his deeds.”116 Sadly, even those who knew there

had not been treasonous intentions woven throughout Benedict Arnold’s many years as a public

figure condoned his demonization as a logical and deserved consequence of his West Point

betrayal.

115 Royster, Charles. “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no.2 (1979), 187.116 Headley, Joel T. George Washington and his Generals v.1 (New York: Baker & Scribner 1847), 191.

Ingrao 45

Arnold sought to strengthen his credibility among the British through strong associations

with top British military officers. He wrote frequently to Sir Clinton and General Cornwallis

regarding the mistreatment of his reputation. Arnold especially appealed to Sir Clinton to

validate his actions to fellow loyalists. Sir Clinton’s credibility did little for Arnold’s reputation

in Britain or back in America but it provides a small glimpse into the relationship and dynamic

between these two significant figures. Clinton’s offers of assistance to Arnold are consistent and

genuine and bring a new perspective to how the British military and government viewed

Arnold.117

Arnold needed validation among loyalists after his betrayal. He achieved it through his

associations with powerful British officials such as Sir Carlton and Lord Cornwallis. These

powerful figures had been key allies to Arnold directly after his treason and were crucial in his

acceptance among the British troops and loyalists. Sir Carlton expressed his sentiments in a letter

to Lord Cornwallis describing Arnold’s conduct and character as that of an “active and good

officer.”118 Arnold eagerly drew upon these relationships to gain favors such as a military post

for his son or social invitations for Mrs. Arnold.119 Arnold’s letters to his son Edward explain the

extreme importance he placed on making the right friends and using these opportunities to their

full advantage.

Arnold also attempted to use his association with Sir Clinton to gain more compensation

from the British government. In 1785 Arnold petitioned the British government to recognize the

loss of his estate in America and compensate him for this financial loss.120 In his petition, Arnold

argues that he attempted to persuade the Patriots to accept the concessions given by the British in

117Sir Henry Clinton papers, William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.118 Sir Henry Clinton papers, v.145 fol.2.119 Arnold family papers, 1800-1875, Manuscripts and Archives Division, New York Public Library, New York City, NY 10018.120 Arnold family papers, 1800-1875.

Ingrao 46

1778 but they were blind to his efforts. He tries to emphasize the extent he remained loyal to the

crown and how his ultimate betrayal of the Patriots and sign of commitment to the British should

be justly compensated.

In order to guarantee a profitable outcome, Arnold requested Sir Clinton’s assistance in

May 1787 in navigating the politics of the British Treasury. Sir Clinton provided a great deal of

assistance to Arnold. Clinton reached out to John Robinson Esq. the Secretary to the Lords of the

Treasure in a letter in February 1787.121 Clinton requested that Robinson meet with Arnold prior

to him petitioning the Treasury. Clinton expressed to Robinson how he sees Arnold as a

suffering Loyalist that Britain is bound to protect. Even with the assistance of Sir Clinton,

Arnold is unable to gain anything more substantial from the British government. Arnold’s few

connections to power did little for him or his reputation. Neither the Americans nor the British

were supporters by the time of his death in London in 1801 and commemorating Benedict

Arnold’s rightful place in history has been a complex and controversial task.

Commemoration of Benedict Arnold in Public Monuments:

The effects of the Republican Motherhood movement on Benedict Arnold’s historical

reputation are still being felt today. Decisions to include Benedict Arnold in any historical

commemorations, reenactments, or exhibits, particularly in New England, have become

controversial. Benedict Arnold committed both heroic and dastardly acts in this region that make

it hard to reconcile a shared history with the most notorious traitor in American history. The

dilemma continues to rage on, not only for educators, but for curators, historians, and committees

organizing historical events in New England.

How should Benedict Arnold be represented at historical sites? Arnold had a checkered

life that included many triumphs as he served on both sides of the Revolutionary War. While his

121 Sir Henry Clinton papers, v.207 fol.8.

Ingrao 47

positive and negative contributions to the Revolution make him a significant figure in history,

the stigma of his betrayal presents a dilemma. His portrayal has continued to be a sticking point

for many communities and National Park sites as they try to provide an accurate historical

narrative. Towns in Connecticut and Up State New York struggle with commemorating their

regional history and acknowledging Arnold’s successes and failures within that same narrative.

This is a difficult task that is still hotly contested even though the betrayal occurred over two

hundred years ago.

Commemoration of Benedict Arnold is especially complex in his home state of

Connecticut. His actions, both good and bad, are intertwined with this region’s significant

historical events. It is difficult for the American public to reconcile the history of Arnold that has

been passed down to them through the efforts of the Republican Motherhood movement and the

real man within their local history. It is this dilemma that enables some communities to look

beyond the treasonous actions and actually celebrate some of his life. Some of the positive

commemorations can be found in communities that reside along the trail of his greatest

campaigns of Quebec and Saratoga.

One journalist’s quest to follow Benedict Arnold’s historical trail revealed the deeply

imbedded conflict that still remains over the collective memory of this man. W.D. Wetherell

spent two weeks on the road traveling from Connecticut up through New York, Maine, and

Quebec to gain a better understanding of the Major General and to inquire about the current

inhabitants’ perspective on his memory.

Arnold’s first significant campaign marching through Maine to reach Quebec marked a

pinnacle moment in his career. As Wetherell followed Arnold’s route and reached farther into

Maine he begins to see that unlike the majority of the country, this region still remembered

Ingrao 48

Arnold’s heroic past.122 Wetherell found gas stations, ponds, motels, and even the Arnold River

that invokes his name without ambivalence to any stigma. The population’s response there was

devoid of the vitriol encountered elsewhere in the United States at the mention of Benedict

Arnold’s name. The locals whom Wetherell encountered were just as nonchalant when asked

about the activities of Arnold in the area. They only shrugged and responding conversationally,

“Why’d he go bad like that anyway?”123

It appears that in this region the collective memory of the Revolutionary times hold

strong positive sentiments about Benedict Arnold’s life and accomplishments before he

committed treason. They have not rewritten his life prior to the treason; thus, they respected him

as a contributing member of the Patriots fighting for freedom who had defected. Their positive

commemoration of Arnold in this region speaks to their understanding of their own history.

Their Revolutionary history is a part of Arnold’s positive history. If these people chose to

commemorate Arnold in the same way as the rest of the country they would be ignoring the

importance of their own history.

Despite his act of treason, he was a successful officer and made history at the battles of

Quebec and Saratoga. His demonization and transformation into a non-person has made it

difficult or impossible for the majority of Americans to acknowledge this part of Arnold’s

history. The presence of both good and evil in a person presents a challenge to commemoration.

One finds a particularly apparent example of these difficulties at Saratoga National Historical

Park in upstate New York, which does not tell the complete story of Arnold.

Saratoga National Historical Park covers the site of both battles of Saratoga, The National

Park Service maintains two monuments located on Bemis Heights that are dedicated to the

122 Wetherell, W.D. “On the Trail of Benedict Arnold” American Heritage 58, no.2 (2007), 4.123 ibid.,4.

Ingrao 49

heroes of those battles. The first monument is dedicated to Arnold but nowhere does his name

appear. Only the observer who knows the history of Arnold’s leg injuries and relation to

Saratoga would make the connection. The monument is a small four foot tall stone marker has a

soldier’s boot and epaulet carved upon it. This inscription memorializes the Unknown Soldier:

In Memory of the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army, who was desperately wounded on this spot, the sally port of Burgoyne’s “Great Redoubt,” 7th October 1777, winning for his countrymen the Decisive Battle of the American Revolution, and for himself the rank of Major General.124

The inscription does everything but name Arnold. When the monument was constructed in 1877,

the Saratoga Monument Association wished to be historically accurate but not actually

acknowledge Arnold.

The battles of Saratoga were significant events in Benedict Arnold’s military career and

garnered him acclaim from the colonists when he was victorious. It would have been an obvious

misrepresentation of history if Arnold’s participation in this battle was ignored in this historical

park. He was wounded in the leg during the defense of Saratoga and was considered a military

hero for his actions. After his betrayal, people could not connect their memory of their great hero

of Saratoga with that of the traitor of West Point. Successive generations have not learned about

Benedict Arnold as a celebrated war hero, they have learned about him as the most disgraceful

traitor in American history. Uninformed visitors to this monument would have a difficult time

understanding or knowing that Arnold had been purposely left unnamed.

Forgetting Benedict Arnold’s role in the victories at Saratoga would be a disservice to the

true historical events, but to acknowledge Arnold’s heroic performance would fly in the face of

his status as the most reviled traitor in American history. The designers of the monument

124 Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold” Social Forces 73, no.4 (1995): 1324.

Ingrao 50

resolved this dilemma by basing this monument on a story of a conversation Arnold had with a

captured Continental soldier after he switched sides. Arnold asked this soldier what the rebels

would do to him if he was caught. The soldier replied “They would cut off that leg of yours

wounded at Quebec and Saratoga, and bury it with all the honors of war. Then they will hang the

rest of you on a gibbet.”125 The subject of the monument was Arnold, which is fitting his

contributions in the Battles of Saratoga; however, this does little to balance his depiction as a

traitor in American history. Nowhere on this marker does Arnold’s name appear. The artists

managed to mention Benedict Arnold’s exploits at Saratoga in a way that acknowledged his

treasonous defection to the British by omitting his name. The inscriptions alludes to a Major

General in the Continental Army but unless a visitor is familiar with the battle of Saratoga, they

will not make the connection to Benedict Arnold.

The planners of this monument realized the necessity of acknowledging Arnold but made

every attempt to symbolize his deceit and uphold the negative opinion of him by the American

people. The building of a monument is supposed to be a sign of great honor. In building this

monument but not actually acknowledging Arnold by name, the planners have created a

memorial. The monument symbolizes the pride Patriots once had and the celebration Arnold

could have had if he had not betrayed them. The most obvious slight to Arnold is that the marker

is only four feet tall. In comparison to the other monuments in the park this provides a stark

contrast which successfully relegates Benedict Arnold to a position of shame.

This monument is rife with symbolic slights to Arnold. To the colonists, the leg injured

in the battle at Saratoga was the only loyal American aspect of Arnold and should be justly

treated to full military burial honors. Thus, his leg is the only part of Arnold that is represented

on the marker. The presence of the epaulet is also significant to Arnold’s historical reputation. It

125 ibid., 1323.

Ingrao 51

remains a constant reminder of how Arnold betrayed the colony’s moral hero George

Washington. Washington presented the epaulet to Arnold as a symbol of his high regard for him

and his country’s gratitude for achievements during the war. These symbols ensure that Arnold is

forever remembered not for his complete character but for his one great failure. The omission of

his name and the shame associated with that overshadows any of the positive intentions of the

monuments. While it may seem that the monument is establishing a multidimensional view of

Arnold, it actually is using all of his positive deeds as a way to demonstrate how awful his

betrayal was.

The second monument at Saratoga National Historical Park offers another significant

representation of American’s conflicted memory of Arnold in history. The monument is a 155

foot tall stone obelisk that was constructed between 1877 and 1882. It was originally built by

private citizens and then later given to the National Park Service. This large obelisk has four

niches carved into it to honor the four great generals of the battle of Saratoga. Three of the niches

contain statues honoring Generals Philip Schuyler, Horatio Gates, and Daniel Morgan. The

fourth remains empty with only the name Benedict Arnold inscribed inside for who should be

represented there.126 The designers of the obelisk had to make a difficult decision. They realized

that there was no one else more deserving of the honor of being placed in that fourth niche other

than Benedict Arnold, but he was not deemed heroic in our collective historical memory. John

Watts DePeyster; was an officer of the Saratoga Monument Association in 1880, provided an

explanation of the decision to include Arnold in the obelisk,

If it is to be settled that Arnold is not to be admitted to his appropriate place, who is to fill it? None other than he is deserving to be associated with the three already selected. No lesser Man had a right to appear in their company or occupy the fourth niche… The statue of Arnold belongs by right in the unassigned niche, [but]

126 ibid., 1324.

Ingrao 52

Americans claim that he was a traitor. Therefore, his statue cannot be set up in it. Still, as he deserves the place and no other can adequately serve as his substitute, it is without a figure.127

The Saratoga Monument Association reluctantly continued to adhere to the interpretation of

Arnold widely accepted in their time. They acknowledge Arnold’s role in the battle but still

present his historical reputation unchanged from that taught by Republican mothers.

Whitehall, New York, is a significant spot for Benedict Arnold and Wetherell. It was here

that Benedict Arnold built a fleet of ships that created the American Navy. A point of pride for

this community, Wetherell located numerous historical markers in Whitehall’s downtown harbor

that are marked B. Arnold.128 Locals still regard Benedict Arnold’s naval feats on Lake

Champlain with pride for their major historical significance even after his fall from grace. On

this section of Lake Champlain, Arnold built a fleet of 15 gunboats which in turn established the

first naval fleet of the U.S. Navy. This achievement is still actively remembered by the local

residents and they have made every effort to preserve the region’s history. This town’s historical

significance is tightly intertwined with that of Benedict Arnold, which makes it especially hard

to celebrate their contributions to the birth of our nation. His contributions to the Revolution

occurred in their town making them historically significant but his status as a high profile traitor

diminishes the pride of their own history. These markers are the most blatant example of many

communities deeply conflicted memory of Benedict Arnold, and how they struggle in

relationship with the most infamous American traitor.

Unlike the monuments found in the Saratoga National Historical Park, the plaque placed

on Arnold’s Bay in Vermont acknowledges the actions of Arnold in 1776 for the Revolutionary

cause.

127 ibid., 1324.128 ibid., 5.

Ingrao 53

NEAR THIS SPOTON THE AFTERNOON OF OCTOBER 13, 1776

IN THE FIRST IMPORTANT NAVAL ENGAGEMENTOF THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE

BENEDICT ARNOLDAFTER A BATTLE IN WHICH HE HAD DISPLAYED GREAT BOLDNESS, GALLANTRY AND SAGACITY

RAN ASHORE AND BURNED THE REMNANTSOF THE AMERICAN SQUADRON UNDER

HIS COMMAND AS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVETO ITS SURRENDER TO A BRITISH FLEET

MUCH STRONGER THAN HIS OWN"NEVER HAD ANY FORCE, BIG OR SMALL, LIVED

TO BETTER PURPOSE OR DIED MORE GLORIOUSLY"129

The marker remembers Arnold’s accomplishment as a sign of his exceptional skills as a soldier

and leader. Arnold’s gunboats played a decisive role in delaying the strategic invasion of the

colonies from Canada by the British for a full year.130 This delay allowed the colonists to prepare

and be ready to fend off the attack from the North. Because of Arnold’s role in the campaign, the

monument ignores the subject of Arnold’s treachery, instead giving focus to this significant

highlight in his military career.

Historian and author of Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary Hero: An American Warrior

Reconsidered, James Kirby Martin believes that there has been a turning point in the desire to

alter the collective memory of Arnold. ''I think he is a general in rehabilitation or, I guess, an

American who is being rehabilitated. I think we are learning that the Revolution isn't the

simplistic contest between good and evil that we were perhaps taught when we were

schoolchildren, that indeed it was far more complex than that, and not all the good people were

on one side and the bad people on the other side.''131 Through accurate presentation of historical

129 James P. Millard, “The Story of Arnold’s Bay: Panton, Vermont” Historic Lakes, http://www.historiclakes.org/Valcour/arnoldsbay.htm (October 22, 2011).130“ Lake Yields a Benedict Arnold Gunboat,” The New York Times, July 1, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/01/us/lake-yields-a-benedict-arnold-gunboat.html131 Groark, Virginia, “Beloved Hero and Despised Traitor,” The New York Times, April 21, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/nyregion/beloved-hero-and-despised-traitor.html?ref=benedictarnold, 1.

Ingrao 54

figures such as Benedict Arnold it can also be seen that all the motives and actions of each

participant in the struggle are complex and cannot be labeled all good or, as is the case with

Benedict Arnold, all bad.

Willard Sterne Randall took a positive perspective of Arnold in his latest book

Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor.132 His book has refueled the debate regarding Arnold’s

motivations, but he makes one thing clear on his opinion of Arnold. Randall doesn't try to erase

Arnold's guilt as a traitor instead he makes a case "to explain why he would even consider

deserting the American side and fighting against it." He also concludes that "like the man

himself, the motives were complex."133

Historians who disagree with Randall still trumpet the opinion long held of Arnold with

no compassion. Richard D. Brown, a professor at University of Connecticut in Storrs is one such

historian. His response to Randall’s argument is a question in return. "If Arnold was not a

scoundrel who disserved the American cause, then was there ever one? Ultimately, Arnold was

vicious, deeply so."134 Brown’s opinion is still the prevailing opinion of Americans but there are

a growing number of supporters of Randall’s revised analysis of Arnold.

As Benedict Arnold’s memory is reshaped, the treatment of historical artifacts associated

with him has undergone a transformation as well. Two of the original 15 gunboats built by

Arnold on the shores of Lake Champlain in 1776 have survived to present day. One, the

Philadelphia was discovered on the bottom of Lake Champlain in 1935, restored, and placed in

the Smithsonian.135 The second, the Spitfire was a surprise discovered in1997. A sonar survey of

the bottom of the lake conducted by the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Middlebury

132 Willard Sterne Randall. Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor (Dorset Press, 2001).133 Pace, Eric, “Connecticut's Favorite Traitor…” 2.134 ibid.,2.135 “Gunboat Philadelphia,” National Museum of American History, http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/exhibition.cfm?key=38&exkey=76, (October 22, 2011).

Ingrao 55

College and the Vermont Agency for Natural Resources discovered the almost completely intact

gunboat. “The main mast and the top mast are in place, although the top six feet of the top mast

are broken and hanging down.”136 The Executive Director of the Lake Champlain Maritime

Museum, Art Cohn conducted the survey and discovered the gunboat. After the discovery, Mr.

Cohn’s team found an infestation of non-native zebra mussels that were destroying the integrity

of the gunboat. This infestation created a pressing need to raise the boat and spurred Mr. Cohn’s

efforts to gain support and funding for preserving the last of Arnold’s gunboats. Since the

discovery, the survey team has sought $100,000 in funding to conduct studies on effective

preservation for the gunboat. This effort to preserve an artifact so closely associated with Arnold

drastically departs from previous memorials.

In 2009 the Spitfire was placed on the Preservation League of New York state’s Seven to

Save list. The Seven to Save list describes seven disparate sites which illustrate the heroic saga

of the exploration and settlement of the Hudson and Champlain valleys.137 The placement of the

gunboat on this list shows the commitment of the community to preserve this artifact. The

community has chosen to embrace their historical connection to Arnold and fight for the

preservation of artifacts directly related to him.

The struggle over Arnold’s memory in Connecticut is much more personal and painful

than upstate New York, Maine, and Vermont. The state of Connecticut has wrestled with how to

deal with his memory for a long time. Now, there appears to be a growing movement not only in

Connecticut, but nationally, to properly document Arnold's role in history; this movement seeks

to set aside the anti-hero persona created in the post Revolutionary era in favor of an accurate

balanced account of Benedict Arnold’s life and role in the American Revolution. 136 “Lake Yields a Benedict Arnold Gunboat,” The New York Times, July 1, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/01/us/lake-yields-a-benedict-arnold-gunboat.html137 Places to Save, Our Hudson.org, http://media.ourhudson.org/photos/places-to-save/, (October 23, 2011).

Ingrao 56

The town of Ridgefield, Connecticut is among the towns that have embraced this

movement and incorporated the honoring of Benedict Arnold in their annual celebrations of the

Battle of Ridgefield. The festivities include a one act play of Arnold’s life and images of Arnold

on a commemorative medallion as a part of a fundraising effort for the celebration.138 The

committee that organizes these celebrations is not deterred by criticism from some of their own

community members and believes the majority is behind the open celebration of Arnold. ''I think

more people appreciate that there were two sides to the gentleman and I think more of us are

accepting what is fact is fact and when he was in Ridgefield it was three years before he turned

traitor, and he performed quite gloriously here,'' said Keith Jones, chairman of the 225th re-

enactment committee.139 Proud of Arnold’s role in the Battle of Ridgefield, the community

refused to let the fact of his treason three years later overshadow or even negate his valuable

contributions to the Revolutionary cause earlier in the war.

New Haven, Connecticut, residents echo the sentiments of Ridgefield toward Arnold. The

Connecticut’s Second Company Governor’s Foot Guard annually holds a Powder Day

celebration there. This commemorates the day Benedict Arnold successfully demanded the keys

to the powder house for the militia to fight in Massachusetts against the British.140 This event,

like that in Ridgefield, directly conflicts with the accepted memory of Benedict Arnold that the

majority of Americans hold. These celebrations of his supposedly forgotten heroic deeds show a

much more balanced perspective of his military career. Because local pride and familial

connections to accomplishments during the struggle for independence are tied to Benedict

Arnold, in these places there is incentive to reject the commonly held selective memory of

Arnold’s role in American history. Holding that view of Arnold has dampened their pride in their

138 ibid., 1.139 ibid., 1.140 ibid., 2.

Ingrao 57

community’s role in the Revolution. The influence of the Republican Mothers has been trumped

by the needs of the current community. Rejecting the current collective memory of Arnold has

allowed the community to capitalize on their local history and bolster their community pride.

The collective memory of Arnold is divided in his birthplace of Norwich, Connecticut. A

majority of residents still believe that he was “quite a villain.”141 Once he switched sides, Arnold

led a vicious campaign through nearby New London. That town’s municipal historian stated the

community’s opinion best, ''New London would never honor him, there's no excuse for a traitor,

someone who turns on his own people.''142 The sentiments here are as local and personal as those

in Ridgefield and New Haven. In this instance Arnold’s actions devastated for the community so

their collective memory is of sorrow rather than celebration. It would be difficult for that grudge

to fade even without considering the treason at West Point.

One particularly influential and unlikely supporter of Benedict Arnold is William B.

Stanley, a Norwich stockbroker. Stanley, a former Connecticut state senator and former Norwich

Historical Society President, believes that Americans need to be provided with a better

understanding of Arnold. Stanley sees the reputation of Arnold as the Republican mothers did, as

a teaching tools for his children. "We owe our kids the knowledge that walking the straight and

narrow isn't always easy."143 Stanley’s lesson will however differ in that it restores humanity to

Arnold and allows him to be both a good and bad person.

Stanley has gone beyond lending moral support to historians such as Randall. He avidly

supports Arnold’s memory as a complex but heroic American. His compassion for Arnold stems

back to his elementary school days when he wrote a paper on Arnold claiming he was the most

141 Pace, Eric, “Connecticut's Favorite Traitor Can Still Inspire Fierce Debate,” The New York Times, February 10, 1991, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/10/nyregion/connecticut-s-favorite-traitor-can-still-inspire-fierce-debate.html?ref=benedict_arnold142 Hanc, John, “The Curious London Legacy of Benedict Arnold,” The Smithsonian.com, July 09, 2010,http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Curious-London-Legacy-of-Benedict-Arnold.html143 ibid., 3

Ingrao 58

valuable American to ever live. He was promptly suspended for three days because he refused to

alter his view of Arnold to adhere to the current curriculum. Afterwards, he made it a lifelong

pursuit to provide a balanced perspective of Arnold. ''He was a good man,'' Mr. Stanley said, ''a

brilliant general. Yes, he was a traitor, after our cause was won. But there ought to be room in

our hearts to tell the truth about Benedict Arnold. If we can forgive the Japanese for Pearl

Harbor, can’t we forgive him?''144

In an attempt to properly honor Benedict Arnold, William Stanley and his wife Peggy

gained permission in 2004 to place a gravestone on the Major General’s crypt in St. Mary of

Batterseas just outside of London. The Major General was buried there with his wife and one of

his daughters.145 Up until the Stanleys procured a headstone, it was marked simply B. Arnold.

The granite headstone purchased by the Stanleys at their own expense originated from Vermont

to pay homage to the Green Mountain Boys who assisted Arnold at Fort Ticonderoga.146 The

gravestone is topped with a scallop shell to symbolize rebirth as well as a laurel wreath for

honor. The inscription describes Arnold as “Sometime General in the Army of George

Washington. The two nations whom he served in turn in the years of the enmity have united in

enduring friendship.'' The writing is surrounded by reliefs of olive leaves, a symbol of peace.147

The installation of the commemorative headstone left Stanley feeling he had finally to some

degree exonerated or at the least provided Arnold with his proper recognition.148 William Stanley

was not alone in his desire to honor Arnold’s final resting place. Another American, Vincent

144 Hanc, John, “The Curious London Legacy of Benedict Arnold,” The Smithsonian.com, July 09, 2010,http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Curious-London-Legacy-of-Benedict-Arnold.html145 J.G. Taylor, Ph.D. Some New Light on the Later Life and Last Resting Place of Benedict Arnold and of His Wife Margaret Shippen (London: George White 396 King’s Road, 1931). 146 Eric Pace, “Connecticut's Favorite Traitor…”4.147 ibid., 3.148 John Hanc, “The Curious London Legacy of Benedict Arnold,”

Ingrao 59

Lindner in 1976 donated a stain glass window to St. Mary’s church to honor Arnold. A plaque on

the building of his old London home also identifies Arnold as an American Patriot.149

These honors are surprising to many Americans because we have been led to believe that

there was nothing good about Benedict Arnold. The commonly taught view of Benedict Arnold

does not even hint at the complexity of the man who committed treason at West Point. The

traumatic feelings of betrayal of patriots when Arnold’s treason was discovered fueled his

ultimate rejection and the moral evaluation of him as a traitor even long after his death.150

It was not the one single event and the reaction of the patriots that enabled Benedict

Arnold to be eternally remembered as the worst traitor in American history. The continual

process of labeling, transforming, and demonizing in order to fulfill a didactic need in the

formation of a civic moral code for a new nation that cast Arnold in that role. Arnold’s actions

threatened the moral basis of the new republic but renewed the solidarity among the patriots. His

actions reminded each successive generation how our social system must confront threats to our

solidarity. His ultimate rejection defined him as what Americans did not want their citizens to

admire or their children to become. This rejection was at the same time ironically an embrace

because his example helped to clearly define the new republic.151

The process of demonization and transformation into non-personhood stripped Arnold of

any humanity that would allow people to remember that he was a complex man with both good

and bad deeds to his credit. The adoption of this altered vision helped the Republican

Motherhood teach the next generations our societal expectations for virtue and morality in our

citizens. The characterization of Arnold as a villain was so strong and so successful that it has

been perpetuated in our national collective memory. For centuries, due to the efforts of the 149 ibid., 3.150 Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 35.151 Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial, 56.

Ingrao 60

Republican Motherhood, our collective historical memory has adhered to a simplified version of

Benedict Arnold’s life, a version that was a caricature of a monumental anti-hero. In their anger

and outrage at his betrayal the Patriots exaggerated his misdeeds and misrepresented his life prior

to the betrayal at West Point. In their zeal to instruct the next generations in the ways of good

citizenship the Republican Motherhood sealed Arnold’s reputation and his place in America’s

collective memory.

Benedict Arnold is arguably, the worst traitor in American history and has maintained

that honor in our collective memory since it was sponsored by the Republican Mothers.

Republican Motherhood as part of their mission to shape the morality of the fledgling nation

became instrumental in cementing Arnold’s demonized reputation into our memory as an anti-

hero. Through their use of oral tradition, stories and songs the Republican Motherhood

movement taught morality and civic virtue using Arnold as a negative example of civic virtue.

Their negative characterization has persisted in American culture over time through the mediums

of education curriculums and public commemorations. Only recently has the historical

community diverged from a universally negative summation of Benedict Arnold’s place in

American history. It still remains to be seen if Benedict Arnold can ever be given a fair

evaluation in American history. It is a positive sign that many communities and influential

community leaders are working to present a more balanced version of Arnold’s history and

character.

Ingrao 61

Bibliography

Primary Resources

Arnold family papers, 1800-1875, Manuscripts and Archives Division, New York Public Library, New York City, NY 10018.

Arnold, Benedict, “To the Inhabitants of America,” Rivington’s Royal New York Gazette, Archiving Early America, http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/writings/arnold/arnlet1.html.

Burgoo, Zac, A Proper Family Re-union. American political prints, 1766-1876 / Bernard F. Reilly. Boston : G.K. Hall, 1991, entry 1865-12. From OhioCivilWar150.org photo archive, http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/omeka/items/show/1758.

Sir Henry Clinton papers, William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

Secondary Resources

Arnold, Issac. The Life of Benedict Arnold (New York: Jansen & McClurg, 1880)

Boylan, Brian Richardson. Benedict Arnold: The Dark Eagle (W.W. Norton & Company, 1973).

Blaisdell, Albert F. The Story of American History (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1901)

Bloch, Ruth H. “Feminine Ideals in Transition: The Rise of the Moral Mother, 1785-1815.” Feminist Studies 4, no.2 (June 1978), 100-126.

Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meaning of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs 13, no.1 (Autumn 1987), 37-58.

Brand, Oscar, Songs of ’76: A Folksinger’s History of the American Revolution (New York: M. Evans & Company, 1972), 54-55, 138-139.

Brandt, Clare, The Man in the Mirror: A Life of Benedict Arnold (New York: Random House, 1994), 1-279.

Ingrao 62

Breen, T.H. American Insurgents American Patriots: The Revolution of the People. (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 18.

Brown, Jennifer. “Curriculum Connections” School Library Journal. December 7, 2010. http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/newslettersnewsletterbucketcurriculumconnections/887513-442/benedict_arnold_the_bruce_willis.html.csp, (November 13, 2011).

Carso Jr., Brian F., Whom Can We Trust Now? The Meaning of Treason in the United States, from the Revolution through the Civil War (New York: Lexington Books, 2006), 7-181.

Dodge, N.S. Stories of American History Teaching Lessons of Patriotism. (Lee & Shepard, 1879), 132, 138, 141.

Ducharme, Lori J. and Gary Allen Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold” Social Forces 73, no.4 (1995): 1309-1331.

Fine, Gary Allen, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 1-264.

Groark, Virginia, “Beloved Hero and Despised Traitor,” The New York Times, April 21, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/nyregion/beloved-hero-and-despised-traitor.html?ref=benedictarnold

“Gunboat Philadelphia,” National Museum of American History, http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/exhibition.cfm?key=38&exkey=76, (October 22, 2011).

Hanc, John, “The Curious London Legacy of Benedict Arnold,” The Smithsonian.com, July 09, 2010, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Curious-London-Legacy-of-Benedict-Arnold.html

Headley, Joel T. George Washington and his Generals v.1 (New York: Baker & Scribner 1847)

Historical Issues. National Center for History in the Schools at UCLA, http://nchs.ucla.edu/Standards/historical-thinking-standards-1/5.-historical-issues (November 13, 2011).

Holton, Woody, Abigail Adams (New York: Free Press, 2009), 1-412.

Johnson, Jacob. The American Revolution (1794. v. 2),

Kerber, Linda K., Women of the Republic: Intellect & Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 1-288.

Ingrao 63

“Lake Yields a Benedict Arnold Gunboat,” The New York Times, July 1, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/01/us/lake-yields-a-benedict-arnold-gunboat.html

Lea, Russell M., A hero and a spy: the Revolutionary War correspondence of Benedict Arnold (Heritage Books Inc, 2009), 1-642.

Lengyel, Cornel, I, Benedict Arnold (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1960), 13-209.

Lewis, Jan. “The Republican Wife: Virtue and Seduction in the Early Republic.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3s 44, no.4 (October 1987), 689-721.

Lomask, Milton. "Benedict Arnold: The Aftermath of Treason." American Heritage 18, no. 6 (October 1967): 16-92. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 17, 2011).

Martin, James Kirby, Benedict Arnold: Revolutionary Hero An American Warrior Reconsidered (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 1-432.

Martin, James Kirby. "Benedict Arnold's Treason as Political Protest." Parameters: U.S. Army War College 11, no. 3 (September 1981): 63-74. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 17, 2011).

Millard, James P. “The Story of Arnold’s Bay: Patton, Vermont” Historic Lakes, http://www.historiclakes.org/Valcour/arnoldsbay.htm (October 22, 2011).

Murphy, Jim, The Real Benedict Arnold (New York: Clarion Books, 2007), 1-233.

Nash, Margaret, “Rethinking Republican Motherhood: Benjamin Rush and the Young Ladies’ Academy of Philadelphia.” Journal of the Early Republic 17, no. 2 (Summer 1997), 171-191.

Nelson, James. Benedict Arnold’s Navy (Ragged Mountain Press, 2007).

Pace, Eric, “Connecticut's Favorite Traitor Can Still Inspire Fierce Debate,” The New York Times, February 10, 1991, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/10/nyregion/connecticut-s-favorite-traitor-can-still-inspire-fierce-debate.html?ref=benedict_arnold

Palmer, Dave R., George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2006), 1-387.

Places to Save, Our Hudson.org, http://media.ourhudson.org/photos/places-to-save/, (October 23, 2011).

Randall, Willard Sterne. Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor (Dorset Press, 2001).

Ingrao 64

Reinier, Jacqueline S. “Rearing the Republican Child: Attitudes and Practices in Post-Revolutionary Philadelphia,” The William and Mary Quarterly 39, no.1 (1982) 150-163.

Royster, Charles. “The Nature of Treason": Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no.2 (1979), 163-193.

Sheinkin, Steve. The Notorious Benedict Arnold: A True Story of Adventure, Heroism & Treachery. (Flashpoint, 2010).

Shillingsburg, Miriam J. 1978. "SIMMS' BENEDICT ARNOLD: THE HERO AS TRAITOR," Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South 17, no. 3: 273-289. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost (accessed February 17, 2011).

Taylor, Ph.D., J. G., Some New Light on the Later Life and Last Resting Place of Benedict Arnold and of His Wife Margaret Shippen (London: George White 396 King’s Road, 1931).

Tierney, Margaret, “An American Traitor Gets a Tribute (In London, That Is),” The New York Times, May 09, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/nyregion/an-american-traitor-gets-a-tribute-in-london-that-is.html?src=pm

Van Doren, Carl, Secret History of the American Revolution: An Account of the Conspiracies of Benedict Arnold and Numerous Others Drawn from the Secret Service Paper (Augustus M Kelley Pubs, 1941), 1-534.

Weems, Mason Locke. The Life of Washington. A new edition with primary documents and introduction by Peter S. Onuf (Armonk, New York and London: M.E. Sharpe), 8-10.

Wetherell, W.D. “On the Trail of Benedict Arnold” American Heritage 58, no.2 (2007)

Wright, Esmond, “A Patriot for Whom?,” History Today 36, no.10 (1986), 29-35.

Zagarri, Rosemaire, “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother,” American Quarterly 44, no.2 (1992), 192-215.

Ingrao 65

Appendix I:

Burgoo, Zac, A Proper Family Re-union. American political prints, 1766-1876 / Bernard F. Reilly. Boston : G.K. Hall, 1991, entry 1865-12. From OhioCivilWar150.org photo archive, http://www.ohiocivilwar150.org/omeka/items/show/1758.

Ingrao 66

Appendix II:

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=9141