“He lives cover’d with Infamy”: The American Public’s Reaction to Benedict Arnold’s Treason
In 1780, when Arnold defected, support for the revolution was at an all-time low. The military fervor, or rage militaire, that had swept the nation at the start of the war ebbed. Few men joined the army, the public tired of the war, and people began to doubt the possibility of an American victory. After Arnold’s treason, however, the American public banded together with hate for one man. Moreover, the early detection of Arnold’s treachery proved, for many, that divine Providence ordained the American cause as right and just. Together, the hatred for Arnold and the providential blessing rehabilitated the revolutionary fervor that had once encompassed the country in 1775.
Scholars who examine Benedict Arnold and his treason categorize the public’s reaction differently. Traditionally, historians have fallen into one of two categories in attempting to explain Americans reactions to Benedict Arnold’s treason. Historians claim either Americans reacted due to deeper, psychological motivations caused by fear that the treason signified a downfall of revolutionary virtue or they created a national identity through a shared personal hatred for Arnold. In this particular area of study, there is also a third route taken by historians – omitting any discussion of the public’s reaction to Arnold’s treason. Nonetheless, American reactions to the treason are significant in understanding the public sentiment behind the revival of the rage militaire during the American Revolution.
The weak point of these interpretations is that they do not use Arnold for a larger purpose in early American history. Arnold is important in American history, and not just for his military accomplishments or an anecdote of betrayal. In 1780, when Arnold defected, support for the revolution was at an unparalleled low. Historians have recognized 1780 as a turning point in the tide of the Revolutionary War, and understanding the impact of Benedict Arnold’s treason will help understand why 1780 as a turning point.
In 1775, right at the start of the war, excitement filled people as they prepared to combat and overthrow British rule. The fervor that gripped the nation in the beginning of 1775 remained unmatched by any enthusiasm for the rest of the war. At the start of the conflict, throughout the country, a rage militaire, or a passion for arms, gripped the people. The dedication to the revolutionary cause touched on nearly every aspect of colonial life, from men joining military units, to women supporting the army, and people conducting symbolic actions such as an embargo with Britain.  The excitement and promise of freedom encouraged a large number of people to back the revolution.
The influence of that zeal for war rapidly diminished. Men readily volunteered for the first year of fighting. After the fervor for fighting began to ebb, though, the hardships of war placed a strain on the relationship between the people and the army. A prevalent controversy in the army concerned the recruitment of new soldiers to replace the ones whose terms of service had ended, or those who had fallen on the battlefield. This quandary surfaced early in the war, as soon as late 1776. The colonists who should have filled those ranks did not believe that a long campaign or a formal standing army was the best tactic in which to win the war. Revolutionaries believed a quick triumph would maintain the republic, and this victory would be due to the courage and virtue of its inhabitants. American spirits could not endure a prolonged war.  In sum, the passion for battle that characterized the start of the war no longer existed. Nonetheless, the Continental Army had more dilemmas than recruitment troubles and soldier retention.
As the war progressed, the army had problems supplying and feeding itself. Even as people urged for revolutionary virtue, those supplying the army engaged in duplicitous actions. The army “received spoiled meat, poorly made shoes, blankets that were too small, and other shoddy goods” from those that had been contracted to supply the army.  Soldiers did not receive their full pay, and officers took bribes to allow illegal trading. In spite of these poor conditions, the army officers expected the soldiers to remain and continue the fight.
Colonists on the home front experienced issues of vice among the revolutionaries as well. People ignored embargoes and trade restrictions with Great Britain, and participated in illegal commerce in the cities. People dealt extensively with the British in New York, and a thriving black market existed. Despite early calls for the colonists to wear homespun and spurn tea, the popular war effort waned from 1776 to 1780. The desire to fight that gripped the colonies in early 1775 dissipated. A degrading sense of morale, both in the army and in the public, replaced the rage militaire.
By the year 1780, conditions were at an unsurpassed low, both in the battlefield and the home front of the revolution. According to historian Marshall Smelser, “the condition of the private soldier in 1780 was probably the worst of the whole war.” The army’s supply issues caused that condition. Soldiers did not have access to adequate food, their pay was irregular, and shelter and clothing were of poor quality. Disillusionment settled in the minds of Americans hoping for a quick and easy victory. All of these issues undoubtedly led to the poor morale that permeated the soldiers and the public during 1780. Even General Washington knew of the dissatisfaction that ran rampant throughout his army. In a letter to Congress, he wrote despondently, “There never has been a stage of the war, in which the dissatisfaction has ever been so general or alarming. It has lately, in particular instances, worn features of a very dangerous complexion.”
All of these misfortunes culminated in one more event that shook the nation’s trust and faith in the revolutionary war effort. In late 1780, General Benedict Arnold sought to sell the fort of West Point, its men, and its garrison, to the British. He also planned to defect. After months of negotiation, British Major John André and Arnold had a successful meeting during which they arranged for the transfer of power. On Andre’s return trip, American militiamen captured him, and the plans for the treason were discovered. This treasonous act capped a series of blows the Americans suffered that dampened their spirits and hopes of an American victory. The British may have thought the betrayal would cause the Americans to abandon their hopes of independence from Britain forever. They thought wrong.
Arnold’s treason prompted an immediate reaction from the public. Americans filled the newspapers with editorials, poems, and satires demonstrating the reprehension with which the public held Arnold. Immediately following his treason, scarcely a day went by when no comment, article, or opinion about his betrayal graced the column of a paper. One editorial satirically “written” by Arnold warned defecting officers to take care of their private papers, lest they “betray the treachery.” A poem written to Tories commanded them to “follow ARNOLD and the Devil to Hell.” In newspapers across the country, ire flourished.
The newspapers were not the only form of writing in which the public’s fury for Arnold played out – his treason even inspired greater works of literature. Almost immediately after Americans uncovered the betrayal, Philip Freneau, the “Poet of the American Revolution,” began work on a play called “The Spy.” This unfinished play telling the story of Arnold’s treason painted a dark picture of Arnold. Freneau described him as a “rascal,” who could “feign and counterfeit” with his “base soul.” Even the British in the play were shocked and dismayed by his disloyalty. Notwithstanding, the public did not limit themselves to the written word in vituperating Arnold.
People took to the streets to show their displeasure. Reminiscent of the Committee Movement and popular mobilization of people during the Stamp Act Crisis and the early 1770s, Philadelphians collected together and took to the streets to burn Arnold in effigy, not once, but twice in 1780. The first time appeared to be a spontaneous event, with citizens dragging an effigy of Arnold through the city and hanging him on the gallows. Local officials planned the second effigy burning. That time, Arnold’s effigy rode through the city on a cart, dressed in his regimentals. The effigy had two faces, emphasizing his duplicity, and held a mask in his hand, symbolizing Arnold’s concealed inner nature. The devil rode behind him, holding out a purse of gold for Arnold. Just as in the poem published in the newspaper, Arnold rode with “the Devil to Hell.” People thronged the streets to see their former leader and traitor condemned in effigy. After the procession, the people constructed a bonfire, and sacrificed Arnold to its flames. As the figure turned to cinders, the people left “both the effigy and the original to sink into ash and oblivion.” The public rampantly denounced Arnold in any way they could.
The government, like the public, also took action to censure Arnold. The Continental Congress voted to “erase from the register of the names of the officers of the army of the United States, the name of Benedict Arnold.” They symbolically erased all the good Arnold had done in the cause of independence, thus pushing Arnold into obscurity. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter to Dutch scientist Jan Ingenhousz, the people “cover’d” Arnold “with Infamy.” 
In their reactions, the American public created a symbol. They turned the hatred of Arnold into a representation that the revolutionaries, and the Army, could rally behind to reinvigorate the independence movement. First, the patriots had to create an identifiable image for the American public. They created this image in two ways; first, by comparing Benedict Arnold to the common Biblical symbols of the day, and then by molding Arnold into a symbol all his own to reflect the hated idea of treason. Such connections reaffirmed the American cause as God ordained and justified continued resistance.
Many of the connotations that people emphasized were Arnold’s similarities to the great villains of the Bible: Lucifer, Judas, and Cain. They wanted to associate Arnold with the greatest malefactors of the time. The public condemned Arnold to a status equal to those villains. The poem The Fall of Lucifer compared Arnold to Lucifer. The work juxtaposed the falling of God’s angel from Heaven and Arnold’s fall from America’s graces. The people connected Arnold to Cain, the Biblical villain who killed his brother, as well. A letter to Colonel John Lamb from a friend expressed the desire that “the mark of Cain is branded on him in the most indelible characters”. This mark would warn others of Arnold’s nature. Benjamin Franklin had a humorous, but insightful Biblical comparison: “Judas sold only one Man, Arnold three Millions; Judas got for his one Man 30 Pieces of Silver, Arnold not a halfpenny a Head. A miserable Bargainer: Especially when one considers the Quantity of Infamy he has acquir’d to himself, & entail’d on his Family.”
Religion permeated nearly every aspect of colonial life, and played important roles in the lives of revolutionaries. This censure was not a narrow condemnation. These symbols influenced the manner in which Americans categorized Arnold and his actions. They did not compare him to the British, or other contemporary villains, but ones that had much greater significance and would affect a wider recognition. Revolutionaries did not suffer just a small slight by Arnold’s hand. The act, for them, equaled the most appalling betrayals of Biblical and modern time.
By comparing Arnold to symbolic figures, the Americans in turn tried to make Arnold symbolic in and of himself. Biblical figures were not the revolutionaries’ only use of comparison. In order to appeal to a wide range of Americans, the name Arnold had to be associated with the treachery and deceit he embodied. For the patriots, Arnold epitomized a villain. By reacting as they did, Americans created that symbol for the revolutionary forces to rally around. They took a common hatred and channeled that ire into something productive; they made Arnold the antagonist of the revolution.
The image of Arnold transformed into that enemy. The transfiguration did not happen immediately, but people started using the epitaph “Arnold” as a symbol for treacherous people. “Arnold” not only referred to the man, but to the sentiments he embodied as well. In a letter to Benjamin Franklin from his daughter, concerning the soldier’s riots, Franklin’s daughter professed the hope that there were “no more Arnolds amongst us”. She did not literally mean Benedict Arnold, but rather the idea of traitors in their midst. Americans were not the only ones who associated Arnold’s name with that baseness. In 1781, still in the midst of the war, a group of British prisoners attempted an escape from a prison where Americans held them captive. One of their numbers faltered, and told the Americans about the British plot. His comrades “unanimously agreed to call him by the name of BENEDICT ARNOLD THE TRAITOR.” The British soldiers compared the traitorous intentions of one of their own to Benedict Arnold. Even in 1783, years after the defection, a newspaper article described a Tory who Americans tarred, feathered, yoked, and had a sheet of paper put on his front with a drawing of a two faced man to represent Arnold. People understood what that figure meant. Americans succeeded in turning Arnold into the symbol of treachery. His name no longer referred to just himself, but became synonymous with betrayal, infidelity, and baseness, the opposite of a “citizen” of a virtuous republic.
The sustainment was another focal point in fashioning Arnold into an icon. The patriots not only created an idea, but also strove to construct a lasting concept of the perfidious ideas they fought. Revolutionaries hoped and believed that the symbol of Arnold would endure for years to come. They strove to ensure that no one forgot the traitor. The Virginia Delegates wrote to Thomas Jefferson about Arnold’s fall from grace, and how “the appellat[ion of] Arnold must be everlastingly changed for one of the Blackest infamy.” People fervently believed that the public should hand down Arnold’s name through history as symbolizing his wickedness. Some went even further, and thought that Americans should remember the exact day of the treason for perpetuity. The Pennsylvania Packet ran an article concerning the burning of another effigy of Arnold in 1781 on the anniversary of his treason, and ended the article stating, “It is hoped that ever memorable 25th of September (the day when the blackest of crimes was unfolded) will be observed yearly throughout the United States of America, and handed down to the latest posterity, to the eternal disgrace of the traitor.” No better way existed of ensuring hate for Arnold than constantly reminding people of his acts. The public wanted denouncement of Arnold to serve as a warning to future generations. By attempting to prolong the revolutionaries hate for Arnold, Patriots ensured that no one would forget the type of evil they fought. Americans were not trying just to create a figure, but a symbol that would endure.
Using Arnold as a persistent rallying point benefited the revolution as well. This focal point reinforced the goals for which the revolutionaries were fighting by promoting the belief that God’s will ensured the triumph of the revolution. Faith of success gave new energy to a dragging revolutionary movement. The ability of the revolutionaries to overcome Arnold created the idea that God ordained the revolution to be successful. That belief helped to rekindle the rage militaire of 1775.
The firm belief that divine intervention had a hand in uncovering the treachery permeated many patriots’ reactions to Arnold’s treason. This conviction signified that their cause was just and God-ordained. Many correspondences of the day, such as Washington’s, commented that “overruling Providence which has so often, and so remarkably interposed in our favor, never manifested itself more conspicuously than in the timely discovery of [Arnold’s] horrid design.” People believed that God had intervened on the Americans’ behalf in order to prevent disastrous repercussions from Arnold’s treachery.
This belief in predetermination led to the idea that God himself sided with the revolutionaries. The patriots believed that since God would not let Arnold succeed in his treachery, “the liberties of America are the object of divine protection”. Even Washington supported this idea in one of his General Orders. He commented that the uncovering of Arnold’s treachery “affords the most convincing proof that the Liberties of America are the object of divine Protection.” Americans rallied to the idea that God wanted them to win; that their cause was the true and just one protected by God himself. This conviction reaffirmed the idea that what patriots fought for was right. If Providence truly shielded them during Arnold’s treason, then surely God supported and condoned their actions and the revolutionary movement as a whole. This belief reassured Americans in their fight for independence. The revolutionaries believed that “Providence is on our side and that our independence is as secure as the everlasting mountains.” Washington perhaps said it best when he wrote, “The cause of America has been saved by a miracle; Major André’s capture and Arnold’s discovery are accompanied with so many providential circumstances, that it must force belief upon the greatest infidel in the whole world, that the liberties of America are the object of divine attention.” Even the General himself believed in the hand of Providence. Thinking God sided with them, Americans were more confident in the success of the revolution. If it was predetermined that fate sided with the revolutionaries, then surely their cause was right and just and deserved their support.
Arnold’s treason armed the people with the belief of predetermination, and helped to rekindle some of the lost rage militaire that swept the nation in 1775. Americans fashioned an image of a villain. Everyone rallied around the idea that God ordained their cause, which was a just cause that Americans would win, no matter the cost. Revolutionaries took the idea that their cause should succeed, and then, with their classification of Arnold as the villain, gave Americans a point on which to convene and add back vigor that had been lost in 1780. Benjamin Rush, in a letter to John Adams, commented, “The discovery of Arnold’s treachery…have given fresh hopes and spirits to the whigs.” He even foresaw the coming rally, commenting, “We soon hope to see the spirit, union, and dignity of 1775 revived among us.” He was not the only American to predict the rally that would come. In a correspondence to Colonel Lamb, one man commented, “on this stage, all good men will unite in execrating his memory to the latest posterity.” There was the expectation that Arnold could serve as a source of rejuvenation for the revolutionary cause. Americans would take their hate of Arnold and all that he symbolized and reinvigorate the rage militaire of 1775. The patriots did not disappoint. Benjamin Franklin perhaps expressed the sentiment most eloquently and effectively when he wrote,
Our American Affairs wear a better Aspect now than at any time heretofore. Our Councils are perfectly united. Our People all arm'd and disciplined. Much and frequent Service as Militia has indeed made them all Soldiers. Our Enemies are much di-minish'd, and reduc'd to two or three Garrisons: Our Commerce & agriculture flourish. England at length sees the Difficulty of conquering us, & no longer demands Submission, but asks for Peace.
As hard as the year 1780 seemed, the Americans were not about to give up. In fact, people rekindled the fervor that had once swept the nation.
The creation of a common villain and belief that God ordained the American cause led to a renewal of revolutionary fervor lost since 1775. At the start of the hostilities, the rage militaire encompassed the people of the newly created United States. Americans were ready to fight the British and secure liberty and independence for their fledgling nation. As the war dragged on, Americans lost the hope and virtue with which they had started the war. The army lacked necessary supplies, the public lost faith in the cause, and the revolution as a whole reached a low point. When Arnold committed treason, the revolution could have broken. Rather than crumbling, however, the public took action. They fashioned Arnold into a symbol against which the people could unite. Patriots compared him to Biblical villains and turned his name into a symbol for treachery and deceit. By foiling Arnold’s plot, Americans viewed their goals and causes as God-ordained and protected. Winning independence was America’s destiny. This confirmation of God’s sanctioning the revolutionary cause, for many Americans, confirmed a long held revolutionary motto – vox populi, vox dei; the voice of the people is the voice of God. Armed with such assurance, Americans rekindled their efforts and support, both in the army and on the home front. They brought back a part of the enthusiasm that they lost from the start of the war. The public used the debasement Arnold symbolized to renew the vigor for the cause of American independence.
The creation of Arnold as a common villain far surpassed the time of the Revolutionary War. The theme of Arnold as the traitor arises repeatedly throughout history. During the Civil War, a cartoon circulated showing Benedict Arnold welcoming the “Traitor Davis” (the president of the seceded southern states) to hell. In addition to the obvious pieces of propaganda like the cartoon, the image remains in subtle ways as well. Even today, over 200 years later, a Google search for the definition of traitor includes the name Benedict Arnold under a list of synonyms.
By reacting as they did, citizens during the Revolutionary War created the image of a common enemy that has endured for centuries. By that sheer fact alone, it is obvious to see how successful they were. They wanted Arnold to symbolize what they thought was one of the most despicable acts a person could commit: treason. They created such a strong figure that it continues to this day. At Saratoga, a monument commemorates Arnold’s daring and decisive victory. Interestingly, the dedication is not to the man, but rather to his leg. The boot monument signifies the only part of Arnold people respect – the leg that suffered in pursuit of a revolutionary victory. People created a man not known for his epic march through the Maine wilderness, or crucial victories at Lake Champlain or Saratoga. People remember Benedict Arnold, the traitor
The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal, 1780.
Cohen, Lester. The Revolutionary Histories: Contemporary Narratives of the American Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980.
Continental Congress. “Wednesday October 4, 1780.” In Journals of the Continental Congress: 1774-1789 Volume XVIII. 1780, edited by Gaillard Hunt, 899. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910.
Ducharme, Lori J., and Gary Alan Fine. “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold.” Special Forces 73, no. 4 (June 1995): 1309-1331. Accessed January 9, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580449.
Freneau, Philip. The Poems of Philip Freneau: Poet of the American Revolution. New York: Russell & Russell. 1963.
Irvin, Benjamin H. Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Leake, Isaac Q. Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, an officer of the Revolution, who commanded the post at West Point at the time of Arnold’s defection, and his correspondence with Washington, Clinton, Patrick Henry, and other distinguished men of his time. Albany: Joel Munsell. 1857.
Letters of Delegates to Congress Vol. 16: September 1, 1780- February 28, 1781, edited by Paul H. Smith. Washington: Library of Congress, 1989.
The Papers of General Nathanael Greene Vol. VI June-December 1780, edited by Richard K Showman et. all. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1991.
The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Vol. 33 July 1 through November 15, 1780, edited by Barbara B. Oberg. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997.
The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Vol. 34 November 16, 1780 through April 20, 1781, edited by Barbara B. Oberg. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998.
The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Vol. 35 May 1 through October 31, 1781, edited by Barbara B. Oberg. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999.
Pennsylvania Packet, 1780.
Prime, Benjamin. The Fall of Lucifer, an Elegiac Poem on the Infamous Defection of the Late General Arnold. Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin. 1781.
Royster, Charles. A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775-1783. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979.
Royster, Charles. ““The Nature of Treason”: Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold.” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no. 2 (April 1975): 163-193. Accessed January 9, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1922263.
The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush. Edited by Dagobert D Runes. New York: Philosophical Library. 1947.
Smelser, Marshall. The Winning of Independence. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1972.
Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy Or, the Worchester Gazette,1781.
Trees, Andy. “Benedict Arnold, John Andre, and his three Yeoman Captors: A Sentimental Journey or American Virtue Defined.” Early American Literature 35, no. 3 (2000): 246-273. Accessed January 9, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25057204.
Wallace, Willard Mosher. Traitorous Hero: The Life and Fortunes of Benedict Arnold. New York: Harper, 1954.
Washington, George. The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources. Edited by John C. Fitzpatrick. Vol. 18. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government and Printing Office, 1931-1944.
Wood Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1992.
“Benedict Arnold”, The Biography.com website, accessed February 20, 2014, http://www.biography.com/people/benedict-arnold-9189320.
“A Representation of the figures exhibited and paraded through the streets of Philadelphia, on Saturday, the 30th of September 1780.” Early American Imprints, Series 1, no. 16959,
D. Murphy’s Son, “The traitor Arnold giving a warm reception to the traitor Davis,” 1861. American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 24778, accessed February 18, 2014,
Google Search. “Define: traitor”, accessed February 16, 2014, https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+traitor&oq=define%3A+traitor&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i58.3851j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8.
 Charles Royster, ““The Nature of Treason”: Revolutionary Virtue and American Reactions to Benedict Arnold,” The William and Mary Quarterly 36, no. 2 (April 1975): 181, accessed January 9, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1922263.
 Lori J. Ducharme and Gary Alan Fine, “The Construction of Nonpersonhood and Demonization: Commemorating the Traitorous Reputation of Benedict Arnold,” Special Forces 73, no. 4 (June 1995): 1315, accessed January 9, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580449.
 Benjamin Irvin, Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 252-255.
Lester Cohen, The Revolutionary Histories: Contemporary Narratives of the American Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980); Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1992).
 Royster, “The Nature of Treason,” 181.
 Charles Royster, A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775-1783 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 25-31.
 Royster, A Revolutionary People at War, 368.
 Ibid., 37.
 Ibid., 127.
 Andy Trees, “Benedict Arnold, John Andre, and his Three Yeoman Captors: A Sentimental Journey or American Virtue Defined,” Early American Literature 35, no. 3 (2000): 247, accessed January 9, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25057204.
 Royster, A Revolutionary People at War, 270-272.
 Marshall Smelser, The Winning of Independence (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1972), 281.
 George Washington to the President of Congress, April 3, 1780, in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government and Printing Office, 1931-1944), 18:209-210.
 Pennsylvania Packet, October 3, 1780.
 Pennsylvania Packet, October 7, 1780.
 Philip Freneau, The Poems of Philip Freneau: Poet of the American Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell), 44-48.
 Benjamin Irvin, Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 258.
 “A Representation of the figures exhibited and paraded through the streets of Philadelphia, on Saturday, the 30th of September 1780” (cartoon). Early American Imprints, Series 1, no. 16959, accessed February 15, 2014, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/Evans/?p_product=EAIX&p_theme=eai&p_nbid=I45J45WBMTM5Mzg2OTY4OC4xMjMxODM6MTo3OnJmLTE5NjM&p_action=doc&p_docnum=8&p_queryname=2&p_docref=v2:0F2B1FCB879B099B@EAIX-0F2FD48C219FA2B0@16959-@1
 Continental Congress, “Wednesday October 4, 1780,” in Journals of the Continental Congress: 1774-1789, Volume XVIII. 1780, ed. Gaillard Hunt (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910), 899.
 Benjamin Franklin to Jan Ingenhousz, October 2, 1781 [-June 21, 17821], in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Barbara B. Oberg (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 35:547.
 Isaac Q Leake, Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, an officer of the Revolution, who commanded the post at West Point at the time of Arnold’s defection, and his correspondence with Washington, Clinton, Patrick Henry, and other distinguished men of his time (Albany: Joel Munsell, 1857), 267.
 From Franklin to the Marquis de Lafayette, May 14, in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 35:65.
 From Sara Bache to Franklin, January 14, 1781, in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Barbara B. Oberg (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 34:271.
 Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy Or, the Worchester Gazette, October 25, 1781.
 The Boston Gazette, and the Country Journal, November 10, 1783.
 Virginia Delegates to Thomas Jefferson, October [5?], 1780, in Letters of the Delegates to Congress, ed. Paul H. Smith (Washington: Library of Congress, 1989), 16:149.
 Pennsylvania Packet, January 16, 1781.
 Washington to President Joseph Reed, October 18, 1780 in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1937), 20:213.
 Nathanael Greene to Catharine Greene, September 28, 1780 in The Papers of General Nathanael Greene, ed. Richard K Showman et. al (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 7:320.
 General Orders, September 26, 1780 in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 20:95.
 Benjamin Rush to John Adams, October 23, 1780 in The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush, ed. Dagobert D Runes (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947), 255.
 Washington to Isaac Sears, October 5, 1780 in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 20:338.
 Rush to Adams, October 23, 1780 in The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush, 255.
 Leake, Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, 267.
 Franklin to Ingenhousz, October 2, 1781 [-June 21, 17821], in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 35:547.
 D. Murphy’s Son, “The traitor Arnold giving a warm reception to the traitor Davis” (cartoon), American Broadsides and Ephemera, Series 1, no. 24778, accessed February 18, 2014, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/Evans/?p_product=EAIX&p_theme=eai&p_nbid=M61M4FUMMTM5MjkyMDczMi40OTgzNDI6MTo3OnJmLTE5NjM&p_action=doc&p_docnum=1&p_queryname=5&p_docref=v2:10D2F64C960591AE@EAIX-10F455FB09DEC390@24778-@1&f_mode=citation.
 Willard Mosher Wallace, Traitorous Hero: The Life and Fortunes of Benedict Arnold (New York: Harper, 1954), 315.