“Let Hell Receive You:” The Public Reaction to Arnold's Treason
A contributing factor to Benedict Arnold’s legacy was the initial public reaction to his
treason in 1780. Newspaper writers supporting the Revolution immediately howled in outrage and filled their publications with articles ranging from condemnation to mockery. These reactions, when added to the response by Washington and the Continental Congress, cemented Arnold’s legacy as a man not worthy of a place in the new American community, since his lack of virtue and honor led him to commit the lowly act of treason. While the previous chapter focuses more closely on the relationship between his treason and the effort to construct a sense of American nationalism, this chapter provides ample evidence of the condemnation aimed at
Arnold from 1780 on. Whereas one still finds references to Arnold’s lack of honor and virtue, many of the references begin to focus more simply on Arnold as evil and villainous.
As mentioned in the previous exhibit, on September 30, 1780, Arnold’s traitorous image was christened with an effigy that was unleashed on the streets of Philadelphia. The effigy depicted Arnold as having two faces in order to symbolize his duplicity. Following suit, the theme of Arnold’s duplicity featured prominently in the periodicals through various formats such as poems. For instance, an acrostic poem from October 1780 denounced Arnold roundly, with the first line pointedly calling him a “curse to virtue.” 114 The poem then used Arnold’s full name to eviscerate his humanity, honor, and very existence:
Born for a curse to virtue and Mankind.
Earth’s broadest 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 live
In all 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 roll
Rivers of Sulphur on your traitorous soul
Nature looks back, with conscious error sad,
On such a tainted blot that she has made,
Let Hell receive you riveted in chains,
Damn’d to the hottest of its flames.
115
This poem goes out of its way to suggest that Arnold is a freak of nature: “Nature looks back with conscious error sad,/ On such a tainted blot that she has made.”116 Significantly given the origins of the Arnold legacy, the poem predicts that he will always be associated with villainy as a consequence of his treason: “Night’s sable veil your crimes can never hide, /Each one’s so great-they glut the historic tide./ Defunct-your memory will live/ In all the glare that infamy can give.”117 Such more the consequences for a man who was “a curse to virtue.”118
Elsewhere, on October 26, 1780, the Massachusetts Spy published a letter to the editor publicly shaming Arnold. The writer, who went by the pseudonym Eusebius, begins the piece by stating, “I believe it may be taken for granted as a universal and infallible rule, that any person that turns out to be bad, never was good.” Eusebius does not immediately mention Arnold by name. But, by the second paragraph, Eusebius calls out Arnold:
I was led to these reflections by the late [discovered] abominable treason of General Arnold, a man whom I once greatly [admired], whole important services to his country, entitled him to the honors, advantages and high trust conferred upon him; and I was a first greatly mortified on several accounts-That a man for whom I had the most friendly regard was forever ruined and undone-That his country had forever lost the services he was so well qualified to render it, and on account of the triumph the enemy would have in his defection.119
Eusebius did not hold back his misery. Like many others, he had admired Arnold as a valiant hero. Consequently, Eusebius’ dashed expectations caused him to draw comparisons between Arnold and notorious biblical figures. Arnold “must wander about like Cain, a forlorn vagabond, bearing in his bosom the curse of heaven and his injured country, as a culture continually tearing his bowels, or a worm that never dies gnawing his heart.”120 Also, the author discusses how Arnold will be thought of as having the blackest character. Arnold, he writes, “must always be conscious that he is seen and known as he is, in all the blackness and deformity of his real
character.”121
Similarly, the Massachusetts Spy published on the same day a poem attacking Arnold. The poem is one stanza with 25 lines total that makes use of rhymes, metaphors and allusions to taunt Arnold. The first half of the poem states:
Arnold, thy Name as heretofore,
Shall now be Benedict no more;
Since instigated by the Devil,
They Ways are turn’d from Good to Evil,
Tis fit we brand thee with a Name,
To suit thy Infamy and Shame;
And since of Treason thou’rt convicted.
Thy Name should now be Maledicted;
Unless, by Way of Contradiction.122
The epitaph uses strong language to defame Arnold’s character. He is presented as a fugitive who betrayed his oath of allegiance to the United States and should be punished. Also, the epitaph ends with a warning to those who are contemplating dissent: “may all who walk in his steps do that service for their country which he did before, and at the time he escaped from life, and then share his present fate.”126
The Independent Chronicle from Boston, Massachusetts published an opinion piece
highly critical of Arnold on December 7, 1780, that also cleverly challenged the honor of British soldiers who were now serving with, and perhaps taking orders from, such a figure. The article begins by saying “when we see a man who has formerly attracted esteem, at once falling into the greatest contempt and becoming the opprobrium and flame of this country we feel a mixture of passions in striking him from the list of honest men, to degrade him with the most infamous.”127
Next, however, the article attempts to persuade British soldiers under Arnold’s command to resign their commissions. The writer exclaims that “if there is an officer of honor left in the British army, he will sooner resign his commission, or die by his own sword than serve under or rank with-BENEDICT ARNOLD.”128
The poem puts forth the idea that Arnold should be given a new name as he no longer lives up to the name given to him at birth. He is now a traitor; therefore, he should be given a name that embodies his treason. By the poem’s logic, Arnold was also tainted by the devil. This means Arnold represents pure evil, therefore his name should be “Maledicted” rather than “Benedict,” a name that comes from the Latin “Bennedictus” meaning “blessed.”123
Days later, on October 31, 1780, the Pennsylvania Packet registered its outrage by
publishing an epitaph dedicated to Benedict Arnold.124 Traditionally, epitaphs are written to memorialize the dead. But, to the disappointment of many, Arnold was still very much alive. The newspaper’s epitaph therefore insinuates Arnold’s civic death to the new American community, as well as his loss of honor. The epitaph states:
In memory of the fugitive shade of Benedict Arnold, once a major general in the army of the United States of America, who with incredible fatigue, unparalleled sufferings, and all the obstinacy of perseverance, pushed his way to the gallows from which his tormented spirit fled, on a day too black to be mentioned into a state of disappointment, want, chagrin and despair, where the ghosts of a thousand murdered oaths cease not to harrow up his conscience.125
Arnold’s letter to the “Inhabitants of America,” written both as Arnold’s rationale for his defection and a recruiting tool for the British, only served to spark more American outrage, not surprisingly.129 On December 12, 1780, the Pennsylvania Packet published a letter to the editor where the author states he saw an “infamous hand bill, issued by that arch traitor Benedict Arnold. I was amazed to think how such a wretch could presume to find his like in the worthy army of America. If he cannot recruit his bloody master’s army till he gets American traitors,” the letter notes, then Arnold “will never be of service” to the British.130
Moreover, we can see that the author approves of Congress treating Arnold with contempt and proposes that the American government take even more extreme measures. The author encouraged Congress to issue a proclamation offering a monetary reward to anyone who would capture Arnold and deliver him to George Washington either dead or alive. The author then goes on to say that if a proclamation is not issued, he/she hopes that Arnold will forever be haunted by the consequences of his actions:
If Congress should not issue such proclamation, I hope the whigs society or some other [worthies] will do it by subscription; it will at least send Arnold the sooner to the infernal Regions; it will haunt him by night and day; disturb his nightly rest; make him suspect his companions; so that he will want more than his TWO FACES.131
The author uses the phrase “infernal Regions” as an allusion to Hell, the place where sinners suffer eternal punishment. The lines issued above, as in the other articles examined here, demonstrate that there was a desire for supporters of the American Revolution, to ensure that Arnold would be eternally punished for his conspiracy. And, what better way to do that then to have local publications spread negative messages about him? There, Arnold would experience a fate worse than death; he would live on in American memory as a man with two faces, who had forever lost the respect he had once had when he was seen as an American hero.
In 1781, Arnold in his new role as a British brigadier general, was tasked with invading Richmond, Virginia, and New London, Connecticut. In December 1780, Sir Henry Clinton placed 1,600 British troops under Arnold’s command from New York to Virginia.132 One-half of Arnold’s forces were American Tories “under Lieutenant Colonels [Thomas] Dundas and [John Graves] Simcoe.”133 Shackleford states that Arnold was so happy with his separate command that he was “ready to mete out revenge to the patriots, now his enemies.”134 Arnold successfully invaded Richmond on January 4, 1781. There Arnold ordered Simcoe to destroy the military stores, foundry and arsenal located in Westham. As a result, the British carried the magazine powder to the river and poured into the water and destroyed warehouses, mills, a foundry, and various buildings.135
Arnold occupied Richmond for twenty-four hours and “made the citizens of Richmond feel the weight of his hand. The town was delivered over to plunder; and many public and private buildings including a range of warehouses, replete with the staple commodity of Virginia, perished in the flames.”136 After Arnold’s invasion of Richmond, he resurfaced in periodicals as a topic for derision. These latest periodicals replaced his lack of honor and virtue with villainy. Specifically, the letter Benedict Arnold wrote to George Washington on 25 September 1780 reemerged in 1781 in the Pennsylvania Packet, the Connecticut Courant, the Connecticut Journal, the Independent Chronicle, and the American Journal. 137
Republishing Arnold’s letter in the aftermath of his invasion of Richmond, reaffirmed the enemy image of Arnold that began after September 25, 1780. In the letter, Arnold contended that his actions were done out of the same passions that had caused him to enlist in the Continental army “since the Commencement of the present unhappy Contest between Great Britain and the Colonies.”138 Following this proclamation, Arnold then stated that no matter what, he would be seen in the wrong since the world “very Seldom Judge right of any Mans Actions.”139 In light of
Arnold’s Richmond invasion, the Americans subjected his words to ridicule. They now had the recent image of Arnold wearing British reds, leading British troops, invading the capitol of Virginia, and burning parts of the city.140 In their minds, Arnold was a turncoat, plain and simple.
Arnold’s invasion of New London, Connecticut, spawned more articles attacking him as a traitor. For instance, a letter addressed to British General Charles Cornwallis is used as a tool to shame Great Britain for having chosen to associate themselves with the infamous traitor, Benedict Arnold. The writer decrees:
Although the prince of darkness makes use of you as a cat’s paw on earth, in the same manner as you employ the deluded refugees, be assured such a haughty spirit will not allow of an equal in his gloomy territories; no more than your lordship could brook the thoughts of the traitor Arnold, to partake of your great exploits in plundering and devastation. Therefore you may expect his royal highness will, through envy, confine you to the lowermost of the infernal regions.141
In this instance, Arnold is once again associated with infernal regions. Similarly, the New Jersey Gazette reported on the invasion of New London, stating that “some houses were plundered; the soldiery seemed to be under no regularity, and everyone was at liberty to commit what devastation he thought proper. This party was headed by that parricide of his country Benedict Arnold.”142 In a previous article, Arnold was also accused of parricide in his march through Richmond. These were damning charges since a parricide is defined as a killer of parents or
relatives. In Ancient Rome, for example, the punishment for parricide involved drowning the culprit “in a leather sack together with a cock, a dog, a serpent and a monkey.”143
The Providence Gazette also condemns Arnold for the invasion and burning of New London. The article reports “this burning Expedition, of which we shall give a particular Account in our next, is supposed to have been commanded by the Traitor Arnold.”144 Similarly,the Massachusetts Spy published a piece detailing Arnold’s pause for dinner before resuming his destruction of New London:
We hear that Arnold when he landed at New-London, dined at a gentleman’s house with whom he was formerly acquainted. After dinner he ordered the house to be plundered and sat on fire. The traitor carried off all the plunder in the town that his short stay would permit him to take. Had he tarried in order to have taken breakfast the next morning, it is likely he would have been rewarded for all his villainies.145
Here he is a glutton and double crosser as he guzzles down dinner and plunders the home of a former acquaintance. Moreover, the anecdote given continues the narrative of Arnold’s despicable character. Additionally, Arnold is blamed for the destruction of many homes and the loss of lives in New London as he commanded the troops that set the city ablaze. In the aftermath of the New London invasion, the British are seen as merciless enemies.The Providence Gazette
explains:
The troops were commanded by that infamous traitor to his country Benedict Arnold, who headed the division which marched to this town. By this calamity it is judged that more than one hundred families are deprived of their habituations, and most of them their ALL. This neighbourhood feel sensibly the loss of many deserving citizens, and though deceased can’t but be highly indebted to them for their spirit and bravery, in their exertions and manly opposition to the merciless
enemies of our country in their last moments.146
Wherever he goes, destruction was not too far away. For instance, the Independent Chronicle claimed “It was yesterday reported that a fleet of 40 sail of transports, with 3 frigates were lying at anchor off black point, near New London, on Monday last, supported to be the Traitor Arnold,
with his brutal band of murderers and robbers.”147
In October, an excerpt from a nonfiction book called the New History of the American Revolution was published in the Providence Gazette. The excerpt detailed the life and character of General Arnold, describing his life as though it were a tragedy. The excerpt begins by discussing Arnold’s lineage, stating he was born of reputable parents in Connecticut and that Arnold’s grandfather’s grandfather was the Governor of Rhode-Island. However, as the narrative continues it looks at Arnold’s life through the lens of his treason and subsequent attacks on the Americans. Additionally, the writer determined that Arnold was guilty of all the accusations that were made against him in the past. These include his plundering of Montreal, and all the accusations made against him in his court martial. In discussing Arnold’s treason, the writer explained how the event was “the greatest catastrophe that ever impended [America].”
According to the author, “All ranks of people spoke with horror of this unparalleled instance of treachery. The streets of ever city and village in the United States for many months rung with the crimes of General Arnold. He was burnt in effigy in Philadelphia.”148 The excerpt also described how it was an invaluable victory for the British if they had captured West Point. Congress, therefore, was thankful that Arnold’s wickedness finally came to light. But, it reminds its readers of the importance of honor and virtue, the biggest calamity was the damage Arnold did to himself. For instance, the passage stressed the “treachery” and “malignity” of Arnold’s crimes.149 Additionally, the passage emphasized Arnold’s loss of honor and virtue by saying “he betrayed his native country—he deserted a cause to which he had sworn allegiance---he had turned his back upon a power that had given him honor and command.150
Passages like these sent a message to the American public that what Arnold did was inexcusable. Arnold betrayed his homeland, deserted his compatriots, went back on the partnerships he made, and hurt himself most of all in the process. Prior to that, Arnold had sacrificed so much for the American cause. He had fought and bled for it and his name was for a time “embalmed with the first heroes of America, and was confined for its full tribute of praise to the gratitude of posterity.” But he had given it all up for 5000 pounds. 151 Arnold put his own self-interest above the nation’s, epitomizing a lack of virtue.
In the end, it is clear that in addition to reminding readers of Arnold’s villainy, the writer hoped to instruct Americans on what they should learn from Arnold’s experience:
America has yet to learn one important lesson from the defection and treachery of General Arnold. To cultivate domestic and moral virtue as the only basis of true patriotism. Public virtue and private vice are wholly incompatible. A speculator in office, a drunkard, a debauchee, a sharper in business, and a man unfaithful to promises, and treacherous in private friendships, should never be trusted with any share of power, honor, or treasure, of the United States.152
At a time when other articles reference Arnold’s treachery in an emotionally charged, if simplistic way, this author underscores how the only way to be a true patriot is by personifying domestic and moral virtue. Ultimately, it is only true American citizens that will be trusted with the power, honor and treasure of the United States. And, failing that, one would be seen as no different as Benedict Arnold.