Washington and Arnold: Contrasts in Character

A new book by Lieutenant General Dave Palmer, US Army (Ret) compares and contrasts George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots.   Theodore J. Crakel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington says “Palmer examines the life of two men, George Washington and Benedict Arnold, cut from the same cloth, led by providence down similar paths, brought close in war by those qualities they shared, but whose different moral character ultimately earned one fame, the other infamy.”

As subordinate officers both Washington and Arnold displayed physical courage: Washington in the French and Indian Wars when he rallied and led disorganized troops to safety after the blunders of his commander had led them into an ambush by French troops and scalping Indians; and Arnold in the early days of the Revolutionary War when he fought valiantly at Ticonderoga and, at the battle of Saratoga, continuing to fight despite being severely wounded in the leg and playing a decisive role in preventing the escape of  the British commander, General Burgoyne. Both had military Competence: Washington well-considered, defensive and strategic; Arnold risky, daring and operational-tactical.  Both were Caring Leaders going to great personal efforts to make sure their troops were well fed, equipped, and trained.  Both were, therefore, trusted by their subordinates and, thus, Inspiring Leaders who won the most important battles of the Revolution.  But, both also were severely tried by opponents.

 In his book Washington’s Secret War: The Hidden History of Valley Forge, Thomas Fleming tells the story of Washington trying to maintain an Army and conduct a war in the midst of the unbelievable politics of the American Revolution.  He faced a “slanderous campaign against his personal reputation which was endangering the army almost as much as incompetence and ignorance in high places.”   Washington was burdened with conniving and insubordinate generals---“the Conway cabal”; undermined by others because of “petty jealousies (Mifflen) and egocentric arrogance (Gates) and fanatic ideology (the Adamses, Lovell, et. al.)”; faced with intervention in his chain of command by a Congressional “Board of War”, and hampered by “Congress’s ineptitude and indifference to the soldiers’ suffering.” 

Likewise, as described by Palmer and in the A&E video presentation Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor,  Arnold’s well-justified heroic reputation was undercut by his jealous senior commander (Gates) and various peers. He was continually passed over for promotion by Congress was consistently denied reimbursement by Congress for the personal funds that he had used to clothe and equip his troops.   Although his leg wound hampered his mobility for combat command, he became frustrated by the sympathetic reluctance of Washington to grant him a front-line command.  When, to give him a senior post and yet allow him time to recuperate, Washington made him military governor of Philadelphia he was constantly accused of mismanagement, corruption and disloyalty by the radical city civilian government which forced him to stand trail at several courts martial.  Although supported by Washington and acquitted he again felt abused.  Finally, in response to his continued requests and in a show of friendship and support, Washington gave him an important military command, the critical defensive fort at West Point. As Alexander Rose says after a succinct summary of Arnold’s career in his book Washington’s Spies, “By then, however, Arnold had mulled too long on the injustices he had suffered and his thoughts had turned to treachery.”

Thus, the difference in how the two men responded to the challenges of their wartime service was in their innate moral Courage and Integrity.

 In his book 1776  David McCollugh says that “Again and again in letters to Congress and to his officers and in his general orders, he [Washington] called for perseverance---for ‘perseverance and spirit’, for ‘patience and perseverance’, for ‘unremitting courage and perseverance’.”  Fleming says that “Quiet Valor” sums up “the man who led them [the Army at Valley Forge] with courage and compassion….” “This big Virginian not only looked like a leader, but understood and accepted leadership’s responsibilities.”

In his book,  Rose cites Washington’s intelligence officer as saying “…while I was a member of Yale College & he residing at New Haven, & I well remember that I was impressed with the belief that he was not a man of integrity….after I left college, & Arnold engaging in it [the war] with so much zeal and behaving so gallantly in the capture of Burgoyne, we all seemed, as if by common consent, to forget his knavish tricks.”  But, as Clair Brandt points out in her biography The Man in the Mirror: A Life of Benedict Arnold, “Arnold had astonishing physical valor but no moral courage; a rigid code of honor without a shred of inner integrity; superior intelligence with no understanding.”  The result was not only a failure of Leadership at West Point but treason. 

 To Face a Crisis Takes “Real” Integrity, Competence and Courage