Benedict Arnold: From American Hero to Traitor Explained

Introduction

As Van Doren notes, "there is seldom any simple truth in treason."¹ It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that the story of Benedict Arnold—known to Americans today as the ultimate traitor—is far from having a simple narrative. While the facts show that Arnold went from being an American hero to an American villain, it is important to understand how and why this transformation occurred. Pertinent questions focus on his personal life and history, his environment, and the broader circumstances of his era. This paper examines the case of Benedict Arnold in order to better understand the man behind the label and the causes that led to his abandoning the "Rebels" to join the side of the Crown.

Background and Context

The Revolutionary War, also known as the American War for Independence, began in 1775, when the thirteen colonies declared their independence from the English Crown. The central dispute concerned taxation, which the colonists refused to accept without representation. The "Rebels" were aided by the French, who sought to continue their opposition to Britain following the Seven Years' War.

Arnold was born in Connecticut in 1740 and was 35 years old when war broke out between the Crown and the "Rebels." He joined the army at Boston, helped to capture Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, fought at Valcour Island and Ridgefield, and was promoted to major general in 1776. He subsequently participated in the Battle of Saratoga, where he was wounded in the leg, which removed him from active combat.

It was at Saratoga that Arnold first clashed seriously with General Gates, his commanding officer.² Arnold believed Gates' orders were strategically wrong and argued vigorously for a different maneuver. Gates eventually relented, but only after hours of argument—by which point it was too late for the "Rebels" to be effective on the battlefield. Gates subsequently dismissed Arnold, leaving him feeling increasingly marginalized.

Arnold's Personal Grievances and Motives

Expecting another promotion, Arnold was deeply disappointed when the Continental Congress failed to deliver one—an expression of what Royster calls the "vanity of officers."³ Arnold was also continually charged with malfeasance and various forms of corruption, though he was almost always acquitted. Adding insult to injury, Arnold had spent much of his own money in service of the colonial cause, only to have Congress claim that he owed them further restitution.

What, then, drove Arnold to defect? Three possible explanations merit consideration. The first is malice or hatred of America—but Arnold displayed no particular animosity toward his country. On the contrary, he had fought nobly for it; only after continuous affronts from his superiors did he decide to switch sides. The second possibility is love of the Crown. Arnold's wife was a Loyalist and would not have objected to his decision to leave the "Rebels," but Arnold showed no special attachment to England either.

The most compelling explanation is self-interest. Arnold craved recognition for his abilities and demonstrations of valor, and the Continental Congress was not forthcoming with promotions or gratitude. In this light, his defection could be viewed almost as a business decision: when one employer fails to reward performance, one takes one's services to the competition. This did not, however, prove to be a wise long-term choice. Arnold died penniless in England, where he had emigrated after the war, finding that his reputation as a "traitor" followed him there as well.

Ultimately, what Arnold most wanted was respect. As a general, he had demonstrated a clear capacity for success. He had sacrificed his health and his personal finances in service of America, yet felt passed over and unappreciated. If the Americans did not value him, he reasoned, he would take his services elsewhere. The parallel to Shakespeare's Coriolanus is instructive: like that tragic figure, Arnold reacted to the scorn and lack of recognition shown to him by those in power, ultimately leaving to fight for what had been the enemy. As Coriolanus abandoned Rome, so too did Arnold abandon the Rebel cause.

Conclusion

Benedict Arnold is often viewed through an American lens, but when examined from the opposite perspective—that of the British—his actions can be seen as opportunistic rather than simply treasonous. Nonetheless, Arnold could not escape the reputation he had earned by crossing sides. He failed to find adequate employment or meaningful service in England after the war and died destitute some twenty years later.

There is a deep irony in this outcome. Money had been among the prime motivations for Arnold's treason, yet financial security proved entirely elusive to him following his decision to betray the "Rebels" and fight for the Crown. As Van Doren observed, there is seldom any simple truth in treason—and Arnold's life, in the end, bore that out. His story is not merely one of villainy but of ambition, wounded pride, and a fatal miscalculation about where his loyalties and interests truly lay. For a fuller account of how Arnold's reputation was constructed and sustained in American memory, see the Wikipedia entry on Benedict Arnold, which surveys both his military record and his enduring cultural legacy.