A review of the literature published within the last 100 years about Benedict Arnold is remarkable. What is even more curious is that, for reasons not so obvious to the casual observer, there appears to be an increasing interest in the subject of Benedict Arnold of late. Fictional stories of his life have been fashioned; biographies have been written; screenplays and documentaries have been produced and tales of Benedict Arnold’s participation in the American Revolution have been well documented. Indeed, some researchers and history buffs have spent lifetimes studying every available facet of Benedict Arnold’s life and appear to have become somewhat fascinated with the hope and prospect of understanding and getting to know Benedict Arnold, the man.
Frankly, I am not certain that I can now determine how my own interest with this man of history started, or what causal factors led me to this point of captivation. However, to my family’s chagrin, fascinated I have become. Suffice to consider it a “hobby,” which became of greater interest to me when I could not escape the conclusion that the whole story regarding Benedict Arnold has not yet been told. Why did he do it? This seems to be the focus of most current writings; trying to understand and explain why Benedict Arnold, a Patriot who sacrificed much, became a traitor. Why did this man who, from the very beginning of the Revolution, was separated from his young family for so many years; who fought in so many battles; who was wounded not once, but twice; who became a loyal supporter and, indeed, friend of George Washington; who gave money and blood to the cause of independence, why? Why did he do it? Why did he betray not only his country, but his friends, his family and, indeed, himself?
Some say it was because of the way members of the Continental Congress treated him with respect to pay and promotions. Some say it was due to the influence of his second wife, Peggy Shippen-Arnold, and her family’s support of the loyalist position during the early days of the revolution. Others say it was Benedict Arnold’s concern about the Roman Catholic-dominated French and their growing involvement in the war; consequently, American affairs after the successful Saratoga campaign. And, finally, some say it was greed and money, pure and simple – he did it for the money. Yes, many theories and explanations have been offered. However, as one reads the work of others, it becomes clear that, like me in the beginning, they essentially ask the same questions and essentially draw the same conclusions based on the writings of others; adding their own personal interpretations and speculations as they do so. The conclusions thus far put forth are, by and large, all based upon the same observations and, indeed, the same writings upon which the history of Benedict Arnold has been cast.
However, as I read more and more, a new focus started to emerge. As I pieced together more facts about this man, as well as those around him, a different question started to emerge. Soon it became clear to me that authors have, for the most part, been asking the wrong question. The difference between others and me at this point in time is the premise of the question. They ask why he betrayed his country. I ask why the truths about Benedict Arnold’s real objectives were never revealed. Could the act of which so much has been written, be something other than betrayal? Might this “act of betrayal” be simply that: an act? Might the traitorous actions of Benedict Arnold, of which there has been so much conjecture, be nothing more than another sacrifice?
How could a man who fought so hard and suffered so many personal pains and losses for the cause of the revolution; how could this man, poised for greatness by his demonstrated battlefield leadership, fall so far from the graces of his countrymen and the nation for generations upon generations?
This question has perplexed historians who have looked back to study, analyze, and try to explain why this battlefield leader turned his back upon his country, his friends and his family. The writers of history have thus far limited themselves to a review of known early records and accounts of witnesses who professed to possess an understanding and insight into the motives of this man named Arnold.
Nevertheless, the writers and readers of the subject of the American Revolution and Benedict Arnold have not given up the quest for a greater understanding of this man and his actions – they’ve yet to be satisfied. The cognitive dissonance between the knowledge gained from what one reads, and what one feels in his or her gut, keeps the flame of interest in the subject of Benedict Arnold burning still. The intellect vs. the emotion – the ever-present human condition where what one knows, from what one reads does not strike a chord with what one feels. The conflict between the intellect and one’s intuition is evidence of man’s continuing struggle for understanding. As one seeks a greater understanding of Benedict Arnold, one must consider both what one learns from the information taken in as well as what one feels. Once the balance is struck between the two centers of our being, only then can one arrive at a greater understanding of this man. For me, the struggle for conflict resolution on the subject of Benedict Arnold is ended.
No comments:
Post a Comment