The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold

by Joyce Lee Malcolm

History remembers this proud, talented, and conflicted man solely through the lens of his last desperate act of treason. Yet the fall of Benedict Arnold remains one of the Revolutionary period’s great puzzles. Why did a brilliant military commander, who repeatedly risked his life fighting the British, who was grievously injured in the line of duty, and fell into debt personally funding his own troops, ultimately became a traitor to the patriot cause?

Throughout, Malcolm weaves in portraits of Arnold’s great allies—George Washington, General Schuyler, his beautiful and beloved wife Peggy Shippen, and others—as well as his unrelenting enemy John Adams, British General Clinton, and master spy John Andre. Thrilling and thought-provoking, The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold sheds new light on a man—as well on the nuanced and complicated time in which he lived.

Genres: History, Biography, American Revolution, Nonfiction, American History, American Revolutionary War, Military Fiction

336 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2018

About the author

Joyce Lee Malcolm is a professor at George Mason University School of Law. A historian and constitutional scholar specializing in British and colonial American history, she focuses on the development of individual rights and on war and society.

She previously taught at Princeton University, Bentley University, Boston University, Northeastern University and Cambridge University. She is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and bye fellow of Robinson College, Cambridge University. Recipient of many awards and grants, she served as a Senior Advisor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program and a Visiting Scholar at the Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies.

Reviews

[David Eppenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the seventh biography of Benedict Arnold that I have read. If you include a biography of Peggy Shippen, Arnold's second wife and possible co-conspirator in his treason, then it might be as many as 8 biographies. To my mind this book is the clearest and most concise recitation of the events in Arnold's life, his military engagements, his successes, failures, and faults that I have encountered in the pursuit of my fascination with the life of this man. The author also seems to be of the same opinion as I am that Arnold's treason was prompted by the loss of faith that results from sacrificing greatly against a foe only to be grievously attacked from behind by those you are fighting for. Arnold is our great American tragic hero whose life deserves much more attention than it has received.

The author does not linger long on the details of the great military events in Arnold's career except to illustrate the magnitude of these events and the effort and expense Arnold put into them. Other works describe the crossing of the Maine frontier and all its impossible obstacles; the plight of the Quebec siege and eventual retreat from Canada, followed by the naval engagement on Lake Champlain and then Arnold's humiliation by Gates and his subsequent heroics at Saratoga. All of these things are satisfactorily dealt with but really only to demonstrate Arnold's commitment to the cause when other lesser men would have simply walked away. The author mentions repeatedly the importance that honor played in the lives of 18th century men and especially military men. Several other works on Arnold tend to repeat and adhere to the notion of Arnold as a character devoted to self-interest, profit, and self-aggrandizement. This author takes issue with that theory and supports her conclusions with specific instances of Arnold's behavior that are contrary to this belief. Numerous other officers of the time resigned their commissions and returned to civilian life rather than continue to fight for the cause after experiencing what they believed to be insults to their honor. Arnold was repeatedly attacked in this manner and yet continued to answer the call to serve and sacrifice all for the cause.

This book makes a very strong case for a reexamination and better understanding of this man's sad life and the appalling treatment he could no longer endure. Of all the men of the Revolutionary generation none has come close to engaging my interest as Benedict Arnold. There isn't any person of that period whose life is so replete with life lessons as this man. There are also lessons to be learned on how the ill-treatment of others can have devastating consequences for any cause in which both parties may be engaged. Sadly, the only thing most Americans ever learn about Arnold is his treason. I wonder how they would feel if they knew about how much he had sacrificed and how inexcusably he was treated by those he fought for. Hopefully history is still taught out there by dedicated teachers that haven't succumbed to educational bureaucracy and they will find this book and introduce its lessons to their students. Of course I also hope that many adults long finished with school will also find this book and learn from it. Enjoy.

[Louise · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me, books with Introductions exceeding 4 pages signal the need for better organization and I pass them up. I made an exception for this after reading the Intro in the library for its promise of showing Arnold in “complete and nuanced context…accessible to a larger audience.”

Malcolm begins by showing how Arnold’s father’s alcoholism shaped his character. In the early years Arnold learned seafaring with his father in the shipping business. As his father’s drinking worsened, there was public humiliation, debt, loss of the business and jailing. In an apprenticeship with his mother’s family he learned more about trade and shipping. On his own he built a successful enterprise, but never shook the need to re-build honor for the family and its name.

In the Continental Army, with limited resources, Arnold forced the British to lose time and consume supplies. Given the dismal performance of the Continental Army at the time his ventures in NY and Canada were victories. He allowed credit for the Ticonderoga victory to go to Ethan Allen and his “boys” (whose agenda seems to be economic and not patriotic). At Saratoga, he is responsible for (hounding General Gates into) changing the site of the battle, and after having been stripped of his authority, leading the Army (while General Gates stayed in his tent) to a watershed victory. General Gates claimed the credit for this victory with no a mention of Arnold.

On and on, you see Arnold achieving and not getting credit. You see him not only passed over for promotions, but denied requested assignments and on top of this, being charged with violations of rules large and small. Some this was engineered by a clique that worked the politicians to undermine not just Arnold, but also his mentor, George Washington.

While he leaves no treatises or speeches, Arnold put his life and fortune on the line. His actions contrast with those of the arm chair generals in Congress. Do his actions show his commitment to the cause or an elusive quest for honor? The quest for honor took the life of Alexander Hamilton with whom he crossed paths several times. Both were self-made men.

There is a brief epilogue on Arnold’s later life where he is not fully accepted by the British; perhaps due to the sad fate of Major Andre, perhaps due to the class system or perhaps due to his lack of loyalty to his first cause. The sad story of symmetry in the father to child legacy is hinted but not covered.

As promised, this is the story of Benedict Arnold for “the larger audience”. I don’t know if there is anything new, but there is good detail on the times, from how the clergy visited the home of Arnold, Sr. to discuss his drinking, to the public skepticism of the French alliance to the frequency of court marshals. You see how a small group of incompetent generals “worked the refs” to make life difficult for Washington and his starving army.

For those interested in Benedict Arnold and the times, this is a good place to start.

[Lissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was more of a 2.5 star read for me.

I think virtually every American schoolchild learns about Benedict Arnold. The only thing I learned about him in school was that he was a traitor who tried to hand over West Point to the British. For a long time, I had no desire to learn any more about him than that, but then I got super interested in the American Revolution thanks to a television show called Turn, and I HAD to read a book about Arnold.

The book does go into good detail about Arnold's childhood and how events that happened while he was growing up affected him as an adult. He was clearly concerned with personal honor, and considering the time period (and how important personal honor was back then), I don't think this is really remarkable. He was a brave soldier (something I had never learned in school), a bit hotheaded, and beloved by his men. He was also hated by many of the men in Congress, which really led to his downfall.

However, I don't think that this book presents too much new information about Arnold, because I had learned most of this from other books before coming across this one. And it really felt like the author was firmly in Arnold's corner; instead of presenting information in a dispassionate way, it felt like she was actively trying to "save" him and rationalize his behavior.

The book needed a thorough editing. Comma splices are like nails on a chalkboard for me, but they were everywhere in this book. There were also lots of typos. What bothered me the most, however, was the fact that the author presented two things as fact when there is no evidence that the one happened (Arnold asking for his old Continental uniform on his deathbed and saying he wished that he had never traded it in for another) and there is scant evidence that the second happened (Nathan Hale's final words being as they are usually attributed to him). They both make for good stories, of course, but stories aren't history.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

America's First Disgruntled Employee

Malcolm's insightful 2018 biography of Benedict Arnold paints a compelling portrait of a man who is accomplished, brave, reckless, proud, and perhaps a bit greedy and corrupt. Arnold’s propensity for making enemies is evident throughout.

From the beginning, Arnold comes across as an opportunist. Unlike fervent patriots, he wasn’t driven by the zeal for independence and harbored a particular dislike for the French. His primary concern, both as a merchant marine captain and later as a soldier, was money. Much of Malcolm's biography delves into Arnold's disputes with Congress over expenses, denied reimbursements, courts-martial, and numerous duels and honor disputes that Arnold, ever the prickly character, eagerly engaged in.

This leads to the question, "How could he betray the cause?" Yet, Arnold’s motivations—honor and financial gain—are clear. His correspondence with British spy John Andre, filled with repeated requests for payment (met with British hesitation and low offers), underscores this point.

Though the narrative is consistently engaging, calling Arnold’s life a "tragedy" is a bit of a stretch. His life had such a mercenary aspect that his decision to switch sides seems less a betrayal and more a straightforward financial move. By the end of this biography, it's not so much "How COULD he?!" but rather "Oh yeah, that makes sense."

[William Bahr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Getting into Arnold's Head...and Character

More than most books on Benedict Arnold, you’ll find this one to be quite sympathetic, extensively exploring the possible rationale for his act of treason, making him out to be something of a talented good guy who made a mistake, ok, a big mistake, a "tragic" mistake. For this contribution to the Arnold literature and a few “Wow, I didn’t know thats!,” I’ll give the book five stars. On the other hand, I don’t believe the author mentions the part of Arnold’s West Point surrender plan where Washington and his staff were likely to be captured there on their return from meeting with the French at Hartford, Connecticut. That Washington would possibly have been immediately killed or later executed doesn’t seem to speak very much to Arnold’s gratitude to the main person who had promoted his career. Was Washington's capture just "unavoidable collateral damage"? As well, the author doesn’t delve much into the very interesting events surrounding Andre’s capture, a significant part of which seems to having been caused by Arnold’s apparent indifference to Andre’s “behind enemy lines” predicament.

I have not closely compared the facts as presented in this book compared to others on Arnold, so I’ll take it that the author did due diligence in her research. However, I would like to point out a couple discrepancies I noticed with the facts as I know them. 1. p 295. I have found no reliable source that can successfully document that Washington considered West Point the “Key to the Continent.” That phrase is a rewording coming from a comment made by John Adams. Washington considered West Point the “Key of America.” 2. Later on that page, credit seems to be fully given to Thaddeus Kosciuszko for West Point’s Great Chain. In fact, Kosciuszko arrived in March 1778, with the Chain being championed and constructed (completed in April 1778) by Captain Thomas Machin under the authorization of New York Governor Clinton. Kosciuszko was to work on all of West Point’s fortifications for two years until 7 August 1780, with Arnold taking command there on 3 August 1780 (with his treachery discovered on 21 September 1780). 3. Moving onto the next page, the author says the Chain contained 1,200 links. While reports vary as to whether the Chain was 500 or 600 yards long, and one can wonder about any difference between how many links were made versus how many were used, one has to wonder how, with links averaging two feet in length (with some being three feet long), even with the swivels (1 every 50 links) and clevis pins (1 every 9 links), at 1700 feet, one calculates nowhere close to 1,200 links. 1700 feet/2 feet/link equals 850 links. Throw in the 3 feet links, the clevis pins, and the swivels, and the number of links goes down from there. It’s interesting that no other source I could find addresses the actual number of links used, but none of them seems unreasonable in their lists of the number of parts. 4. Later on that page, the author equates the Hudson River to be the “Great [Indian Trading/] Warpath.” Well, sort of. The “Great Warpath” (aka the “Seneca Trail"), which ran through the Appalachian Valley, was more or less a straight line, following the Hudson River north from New York City, through Albany, to close to Lake George and then further north to Lake Champlain towards Montreal (on the St. Lawrence River). Unfortunately, for a Hudson River only description, just south of Lake George, the Hudson River veers off and follows a generally meandering northwest trail until It officially stops near Henderson Lake, maybe 30 miles west of the southern portion of Lake Champlain. In a more narrow definition, the “Great Warpath” went from Albany to Montreal. In a wider definition, the “Great Warpath” moved west at times and extended south to deep within Alabama.

Bottom line, problems aside, if you’re intrigued about getting into the mind and especially the character of America’s most notorious traitor, as a fellow author, I highly recommend this book.

[J.R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Benedict Arnold should have been one of the great military heroes of the United States. Instead, circumstance and the jealousy of lesser men made him a traitor to the country he loved.
Malcolm doesn't condone Arnold's treason, but presents evidence--including newly discovered primary documents--to help us understand the man and his motivation. The evidence also seems to exonerate Arnold's wife, Peggy (Shippen), who has often been portrayed as a co-conspirator, from any role in his treachery.
It's important to remember only about a third of Americans favored the revolution. Another third remained loyal to the crown while the remainder took a wait and see position on the outcome. While we laud the founders, it's also important to remember these politicians remained at home, attending to their businesses, while their distrust of a standing army (a legacy from the British), desire to micro-manage every aspect of the war, and parsimony in paying the men and even providing for their welfare is a disgrace. Arnold was among many officers who paid men out of their own pockets to prevent them abandoning the task.
Arnold's heroic behavior at Montreal, on Lake Champlain and, particularly, at Saratoga is beyond question and gained him the admiration of George Washington, among others. It also inspired the enmity of lesser men, including Horatio Gates who cowered in his tent while Arnold led the troops to victory at Saratoga, a victory for which Gates claimed the credit. The jealousy of Gates and others led to the filing of false charges of profiteering and even cowardice which eroded his reputation and eventually led to a courts-martial. Though the trial failed to find him guilty of any wrong doing, the politicians demanded a censure and Washington bowed to their pressure--a slap in the face from a man he respected and which obviously contributed to Arnold's defection.
Arnold had abandoned his own business and neglected his family responsibilities, plunging himself into debt, to serve the country he loved. The serious injury suffered at Saratoga incapacitated him for active duty. Washington, apparently thinking it would give him time to heal, appointed him to a political post at Philadelphia for which he was ill-suited. Arnold's pleas for a naval command, a position for which he was qualified by experience as a ship owner and mariner, were ignored. Had this been granted, history might have a different slant on the man.
Arnold thought the war was lost and the only hope was reconciliation with Britain when he took the fatal steps that defamed his name and honor forever. It's easy to judge a person with the advantage of distance in time and under the influence of past opinions. We were not there, and it's important to review all the evidence and not blindly accept traditional views.

[Jon Gautier · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m not sure where to start with this one. It seems very poorly edited, with typos, cliches, repetitive passages, and even a howler of a malapropism “the dye was cast.” But there is the larger issue of why it was written. Published in 2018, it adds almost nothing to a half dozen previously published—and better written—books on the subject. I would call Malcolm’s prose competent but dull.

The author, a law professor, claims that, based on some newly discovered source materials, her book goes against other histories by showing that Arnold’s wife was not involved in his treason. You’d think this might merit a chapter, you know, comparing source materials and making cogent arguments. Instead Malcolm writes her general chronological account as if the question of Peggy Arnold’s treason was mostly settled, and throws in a few scattered (and unconvincing) comments to deflect some of the evidence against her argument, such as it is. Malcolm also ignores at least one big part of the story that makes it into other histories (that of Peggy, during her trip from New York back to Philadelphia telling a confidant that her hysterics over the treason were all an act). Unless I skipped a page, Malcolm simply leaves this damning story out.

The book also tries to portray Arnold in a more sympathetic light, which is fine, but does no better a job, than, say Wallace or Martin, even if they lacked some of the new materials Malcolm had access to. She also sidesteps the contested issue of Arnold’s presence at Freeman’s Farm, simply assuming he was there.

Another thing Malcolm does that I found at best confusing is to tell the story of Arnold’s court martial chronologically, but omitting the simultaneous beginnings of his treason. It is important in judging Arnold’s character to know that when he was telling his court martial what a loyal American he was, he had already taken treasonous steps. Malcolm instead keeps the court martial chapter separate from the treason origins chapter. This makes for a good legal brief technique, but not good objective history.

So maybe I read this so you don’t have to.

[William Haverinen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Attended Joyce Malcolm's book tour meeting at Northshire, and bought the book. Had read "1777" recently, and wanted to know more about Benedict Arnold.
Arnold was a brilliant battlefield commander, brave to the point of being foolhardy. At Saratoga, Gates sat in his tent, never saw the battlefield. And Gates hated Arnold, Arnold's friendliness to Schuyler and Washington. Arnold was ordered to stay with Gates, and instead rode off into the battle and was instrumental in winning it.
Arnold payed his men out of his own savings, and ended up in debt. And Congress claimed he owed them one thousand pounds.
After partially recovering from wounds, Washington made him military governor of Philadelphia, where he got into political battles with the state executive council, and Congress. He ended up being unfairly court martialed, and Washington reluctantly wrote a letter of censure.
So Arnold flipped sides. Somewhat understandable, but not really. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, all had difficulties on the same scale.

[Cameron Rhoads · Rating 5 out of 5]

14.58 hours on Audible. The tragedy of the American hero of Saratoga (1777), which victory ironically brought the French on the side of the American Revolution. This book was more meaningful to me because I visited Arnold’s home in exile and final resting place on my trip to London in June 2025.

[Marilyn Cassidy]

Excellent book. Immensely enjoyable, educational, and easy to read.

[William Bahr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Getting into Arnold's Head...and Character

More than most books on Benedict Arnold, you’ll find this one to be quite sympathetic, extensively exploring the possible rationale for his act of treason, making him out to be something of a talented good guy who made a mistake, ok, a big mistake, a "tragic" mistake. For this contribution to the Arnold literature and a few “Wow, I didn’t know thats!,” I’ll give the book five stars. On the other hand, I don’t believe the author mentions the part of Arnold’s West Point surrender plan where Washington and his staff were likely to be captured there on their return from meeting with the French at Hartford, Connecticut. That Washington would possibly have been immediately killed or later executed doesn’t seem to speak very much to Arnold’s gratitude to the main person who had promoted his career. Was Washington's capture just "unavoidable collateral damage"? As well, the author doesn’t delve much into the very interesting events surrounding Andre’s capture, a significant part of which seems to having been caused by Arnold’s apparent indifference to Andre’s “behind enemy lines” predicament.

I have not closely compared the facts as presented in this book compared to others on Arnold, so I’ll take it that the author did due diligence in her research. However, I would like to point out a couple discrepancies I noticed with the facts as I know them. 1. p 295. I have found no reliable source that can successfully document that Washington considered West Point the “Key to the Continent.” That phrase is a rewording coming from a comment made by John Adams. Washington considered West Point the “Key of America.” 2. Later on that page, credit seems to be fully given to Thaddeus Kosciuszko for West Point’s Great Chain. In fact, Kosciuszko arrived in March 1778, with the Chain being championed and constructed (completed in April 1778) by Captain Thomas Machin under the authorization of New York Governor Clinton. Kosciuszko was to work on all of West Point’s fortifications for two years until 7 August 1780, with Arnold taking command there on 3 August 1780 (with his treachery discovered on 21 September 1780). 3. Moving onto the next page, the author says the Chain contained 1,200 links. While reports vary as to whether the Chain was 500 or 600 yards long, and one can wonder about any difference between how many links were made versus how many were used, one has to wonder how, with links averaging two feet in length (with some being three feet long), even with the swivels (1 every 50 links) and clevis pins (1 every 9 links), at 1700 feet, one calculates nowhere close to 1,200 links. 1700 feet/2 feet/link equals 850 links. Throw in the 3 feet links, the clevis pins, and the swivels, and the number of links goes down from there. It’s interesting that no other source I could find addresses the actual number of links used, but none of them seems unreasonable in their lists of the number of parts. 4. Later on that page, the author equates the Hudson River to be the “Great [Indian Trading/] Warpath.” Well, sort of. The “Great Warpath” (aka the “Seneca Trail"), which ran through the Appalachian Valley, was more or less a straight line, following the Hudson River north from New York City, through Albany, to close to Lake George and then further north to Lake Champlain towards Montreal (on the St. Lawrence River). Unfortunately, for a Hudson River only description, just south of Lake George, the Hudson River veers off and follows a generally meandering northwest trail until It officially stops near Henderson Lake, maybe 30 miles west of the southern portion of Lake Champlain. In a more narrow definition, the “Great Warpath” went from Albany to Montreal. In a wider definition, the “Great Warpath” moved west at times and extended south to deep within Alabama.

Bottom line, problems aside, if you’re intrigued about getting into the mind and especially the character of America’s most notorious traitor, as a fellow author, I highly recommend this book.

[Danny Jarvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

While inexcusable and selfish, Arnold’s actions are completely understandable and this book argues that point and makes you think deeper about his simple footnote of history as a traitor. It’s a story of considering how long one person can fight actual battles against an enemy while fighting political battles against enemies on their own side. What it means to be constantly insulted, even after shedding blood and being crippled on their behalf, while going years without financial compensation, and still achieving tactical and strategic victories against the odds. To be perpetually discredited publicly despite one’s actions in the name of the public’s good. It’s hard to imagine anyone else in his position not feeling equally slighted and possibly reach the same conclusion given the context of its time.

The son of a debted cooper and apprenticed to an apothecary, his real education came from the outdoor skills he learned from local Indian tribes as a youth which would serve him in the military. His first experience in war was as a Connecticut militia member called to service at 16 in the French and Indian war. That experience, particularly the massacre of fort Henry where French leaders allowed their Indian counterparts to massacre captives, shaped his experience and attitude towards warfare and the French.

His time as young adult was spent as a Connecticut merchant, struggling to pay off the debts incurred by his alcoholic father, British taxes, and his own business practices. His choice of personally traveling to the West Indies for business led in part to slander attempting to discredit him; falsely accusing him of excessive drinking and VD. He was forced to keep his honor through legal pursuit against liable and even winning a duel with those who questioned his status has a gentleman. His brash personality would continue to put him in the crosshairs of slander throughout his life.

Despite his own loyalties to the crown as a merchant, he saw parliament’s encroachment on colonial rights as a just cause for independence. He was elected captain of the Connecticut Militia upon the start of the war did not hesitate joining the fight. Following his successful capture of the fort and cannon at Ticonderoga and getting ready to return home, he discovered that while away, his wife had died of sudden illness and he wouldn’t even be home for her funeral or to comfort his children. At the same time, he had his first dispute with the Continental Congress who claimed misuse of funds during his campaign. It took other leaders vouching for his character, as well as his personal meeting with Washington to publicly clear his name once again.

Commissioned into the Continental Army, he proposed and lead the daring expedition through the Maine wilderness to Quebec, under harsh conditions and worse weather, and received his first wound in battle. While away, his sister whom he’d left his children and his business in the care of, regularly wrote to him saying how they wished for his return and how his business was going further into debt as she failed to manage it well.

Immediately following the failed Canadian campaign he was falsely accused of looting in Montreal, which led to more political enemies calling for his court martial, which was set up as “kangaroo court“ where he wasn’t even allowed to present evidence in his defense. Accused for ungentlemanly behavior during the trial, he even offered to dual with those members slandering his honor. His saving grace came once again from his superior officers (Gates and Washington) calling for his assistance in the field. Equally damaging to his pride, the officer he accused to truly be at fault for the accusations in question was not only acquitted, but promoted to equal rank.

At the battle of Valcour Island, he continued to show his mettle through a daring naval battle in which he escaped and was lauded by superiors and his enemies on both sides of the conflict for successfully holding off the British navy’s strategic campaign despite the tactical loss. His continued triumphs on the battlefield and refusal to pander to politicians continued to bread envious peers and distrusting politicians. Congress promoted a number of politically-backed officers to Major General and passed over Arnold. This was personally acknowledged by Washington who thought it was a mistake and wrote to Arnold saying he would look into it, basically requesting him not to quit given that it was custom to believe being passed over was a polite request for resignation. Only after yet another act of heroism during an unrelated event driving the British out of Connecticut was he finally appointed to Major General. However, this was not a correction of being passed over and thus Arnold requested an opportunity to defend his good name with Congress against the accusations against him. Despite eventually acknowledging he did no wrong, they did not restore his seniority by backdating the rank. In response, he submitted his resignation, but did so at the same time the British were invading down the Hudson and Washington and other seniors requested him to lead the American counter effort. He once again put the cause of the revolution before his personal honor.

With Gates in charge of the army sent to counter British movement from Canada, he preferred a defensive stance which the British army was preparing for. Arnold pled for and received permission to go on the offensive and engage British forces at Freeman’s farm. During the engagement, Arnold and Daniel Morgan successfully held back the British army despite Gates’ refusal to send reinforcements. Arnold’s bravery and leadership that day is what inspired his men and won the battle. Out of vindictiveness and jealousy, Gates deliberately left him out of his report to Congress taking credit for the victory himself. Gates saw Arnold as insubordinate and stripped him of his command, again leading to his request for resignation, only staying after receiving written praise and request to stay from his men and officers. Gates essentially confined Arnold to his tent without command for the decisive engagement which was to come, during which Gates was content to remain in his tent to the rear and fail to command the field. His lack of command aside, Arnold left his quarters to head to the battlefield when the fighting began saying he’d rather fight alongside the men as a regular, than sit in the rear at the most crucial moment. His leadership was so great that historians argue the battle of Saratoga was only won because of his presence on the field while Gates and his second in command, Lincoln remained in the rear. It was also during this battle where Arnold was shot in the same leg as before, permanently crippling him. This battle was of course, the most strategically important to the entire American cause as it directly led to the alliance with the French which would lead to winning the war.

Appointed military governor of the recently British abandoned Philadelphia during his medical recovery, Arnold was given the nearly impossible task of maintaining the peace in the largest city in the colonies, divided between loyalist and patriots. This was compounded by the fact it was full of politicians and merchants who were gaining personal success from the war without participating in the fighting and who were leery of military leaders. Not politician by any means, Arnold’s skill and personality were that of the greatest field commander for either side, but in stark contrast to those required of a peaceful garrison assignment. This clash resulted in constant consternation between Philadelphia’s political leaders and eventually yet another court martial based on very thin charges to defend his honor. He was found guilty and punished by written reprimand from Washington, the final blow to his honor and lack of gratitude for all which he had sacrificed in the name of the cause. This is what drove him to reach out to the British and offer his service.

Had he laid down his arms and refused to fight any longer, his reputation would have remained that of a hero. He could have been adorned all which was truly owed to him after American independence was won. Yet in the context of the time, he did not know who would be victorious and hedged his personal bets on what would be the losing side. “The real tragedy is… that a brilliant and heroic man opted to betray the victory he had done so much to achieve in order to retain his personal honor and in the process dishonored his name for eternity.”

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story this biography tells is absolutely enthralling. Benedict Arnold was sure a complex man, his life and choices absolutely fascinating, but time and time again one feels like the author is just too bent on trying to clear Arnold’s name to make very good history, or to make a truly compelling portrait of the man. This alone puts the reader off, even if one were to ignore the modest prose and sometimes not too logical way of telling things (for example giving the briefest presentation known to man about André’s background a whole thirty pages after André starts to actively interact with Arnold, completely out of the blue and without a real logical consequence with what is explained directly after.)
There is also a bit of superficiality on the characters involved in the story beside Arnold, giving sparse information about them so that sometimes the only potentially three dimensional person in the biography seems to be Arnold himself.
Overall, it’s not a bad book, though, and the effort to give a completely different look on this fascinating man’s life is commendable. But the way the author skips over details and gives context only when it may be useful to further her thesis is extremely annoying, not to mention that this thesis in the end not only justifies Arnold’s actions, but depicts Peggy as a young, innocent girl who had nothing to do with both André and definitely did not convince nor help her husband when he switched sides- which may be true, who knows, but Malcom gives no proofs to support her own theory in favour of the more historically famous one- but staid steadfast by him like a quiet, devoted wife until the end of his life.
Given the title of this book one kind of expects the author to root for Arnold- which is legitimate, since next to every biographer of this world loves or admires the characters they make research on for years to draw up a biography- but the ending portrait isn’t nuanced at all, it doesn’t acknowledge Arnold’s failures and mistakes as his own, but rather shifts the blame to the bad Congressmen or the jealous and cowardly other officers involved (not to mention the distrusting British officers who refused to put their faith in a disgraced traitor). Despite Malcom’s valiant effort to rehabilitate him, the end result seems to cheapen somewhat Benedict Arnold’s character, since it tries to give an edulcorated image of him as a misunderstood hero that from some point on is only trying to regain his own honour after fate set him up for failure.
As I said before, it’s still an interesting read, for all his lacks, but the reviews which compare The tragedy of Benedict Arnold to Chernow’s Hamilton (which is, of course, not perfect nor unbiased, and largely skewed toward justifying Hamilton’s actions as well, but an absolutely great work all the same) are definitely misleading.

[Chris Heim · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't often award fewer than three stars to a book, and it's particularly surprising that I would do so for a book whose subject (the American Revolution) is of inherent interest to me. However, I couldn't get past "it was ok" (two stars threshold) for this one.

Having been interested in Benedict Arnold's life by the outstanding Netflix series "Turn", I also realized how little I knew about the General's life upon watching it. Arnold plays an important role in a portion of the series, and this was my first real exposure to him as a person of primary importance in the Revolution. Thus, my desire to read a book about his life.

In a related turn of events, Malcolm's book was published right around the time I finished watching the series and thus made for the perfect accompanying read to help me learn more about Arnold's life. While it's impossible to truly read any 350+ page book without learning a considerable amount about its title character, I was surprised at how much of this text was dedicated to ancillary troop movements and secondary characters. In the end, it left me feeling that Malcolm should have trimmed this book to about 200-250 pages (a "no-no", I know, for nonfiction works in today's publishing world) and focused more exclusively on Arnold.

In reading the book, I learned the most about his complicated and challenging childhood and how it impacted the way he lived his life. Much of the wartime retelling of his life was dragged out in an excruciating manner in the description of how this other figure moved his troops here, but was cut off by this other leader there, etc. - just the sort of description that makes me yawn and want to fast-forward. The story of the moments surrounding his betrayal were intriguing, but I knew much of this part by having watched "Turn".

If you're looking for a "get to the point" kind of narrative of Arnold's life, as I was, this is not the book for you. As it turns out, there are not 350+ pages of interesting, Arnold-focused biographic details to create a book around. Or at least, if there are, Malcolm didn't bring them to the table. If you're okay with a meandering Revolutionary War narrative, bookended with a healthy dose of Benedict Arnold, then you'd be fine taking this one on.

[Jules · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provides good perspective on Arnold. Would have profited greatly from a better editor. Complete and coherent sentences, anybody?

[Emily Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good biography but didn't captivate me compared to other Arnold biographies I've read.

[Bill Nestor · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise telling of the Benedict Arnold saga. Quite possibly the best fighting general on either side in the Revolutionary War. He operated in an atmosphere where the continental congress did not trust successful generals for fear the generals might rally their men to seize control of the government. If a general WAS successful he met with the distrust, and if he failed ( lost a battle) he was court martialed, and made to explain why he lost. Damned if one did and damned if one didn't. Like many of the US generals Arnold payed his men frequently from his own pocket when possible. His shipping business also suffered mightily during the war as to make him poor in his country's service.

Near as I can compare it to the modern era, Arnold had a personality quite like George Patton. ( George Washington has a personality like Eisenhower)
Needless to say the continental congress preferred Washington's personality much better.
Arnold could be quite difficult with others, especially those who got promotions or credit he felt he deserved. At the Battle of Saratoga the commanding general, Horatio Gates hardly left his tent, while Arnold seemed to be everywhere on the battlefield. Arnold led the army to victory..... the first victory for the new US Army. Gates however got all the credit.

The theme of the book to me at least is not so much Arnold's betrayal, rather a study in betrayal. What does one have to put up with before one turns.
Arnold was
1) passed up for promotion in favor of inferior officers
2) made a pauper by his service
3) court martialed for what dome might say were questionable personal decisions during his time a military governor of Philadelphia
4) almost lost a leg at Saratoga

How much must one have to put up with before one turns? Arnold found his limit.
At the end of the book I came to feel that Arnold, while a traitor was far more complex a figure than that. I empathized with him quite a bit, and came away far from condemning him.

Far from a simple tale from the Revolutionary War Arnold's story is deep, with many villains.

[Tom Walsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was on my TBR pile, and I passed several others to read it. It’s one of my favorite topics: an upright intelligent man goes astray. Because Benedict Arnold was so loyal to the American cause, what detailed events led him to offer the British West Point?

Joyce Lee Malcolm, of Alexandria Virginia , did a thorough job to research and annotate her sources on this difficult subject. Arnold came from a family on the move and in debt. Nothing seemed to come easy to him. His Uncle Oliver, of New haven, rescued the family. The author notes Arnold would never forget that family, and supported his cousins after Oliver died. Arnold is drawn as a complex man, yet victim of human error and greed.

Although his tragedies mounted, he built his reputation quickly, as an outstanding officer under Washington. But, perhaps because of his youthful fears of debt, he always requested more and more supplies and money from the Continental Congress. They responded with caution.

History aside, the author presents a web of elegant prose, laced, of course
with facts, but frosted with vivid descriptions. Look at this example, at the end of Chapter 14, which describes the British destruction of Arnold’s ship in the Battle of Valcour Island, close to Canada’s border:

“As the sun slipped down behind the mountains,the. British ships drew off for the night, taking up a position that blocked the American ships in the Valcour channel. They continued firing at Arnold’s ship...Darkness fell over the lake, the rising mist punctuated only by the flames of (Arnold’s ship) The Royal Savage, glowing in the night sky.” P 161

I was struck by the irony of Arnold’s ship’s name: The Royal Savage. The coupling of the adjective and the noun seems strange, but after one reads this superlative biography, it fits!

[Hans Myers · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's something to be said about a fascination with those whose reputations are synonymous with certain single words. George Washington is renowned as honorable; Benjamin Franklin as a genius; and Benedict Arnold is a traitor. But one must always ask oneself what was behind these reputations? Washington's courtly manners and stern sense of right and wrong; Franklin's polyglot status and inventions coupled with a gift for statecraft; and Benedict Arnold's... what precisely? In American public schools, when Arnold is mentioned at all, it is for his attempt to surrender Fort Arnold at West Point, New York, to the British army under General Sir Henry Clinton in New York City. And so the story goes: Arnold the traitor is nearly caught, but escapes to the British lines. History is rarely so simple, and in her book "The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold," historian Joyce Lee Malcolm attempts to contextualize what made the Hero of Saratoga turn his coat to the British. This book presents Arnold as a man: warts and all. His keen sense of honor, his prickly temper, and - above all else - his ambition to rise above the social shame of an indebted, alcoholic father, are fully on display in this book. Far more sympathetic to Arnold than most other biographies of America's Cain, this volume attempts to contextualize the why of his betrayal: examining the question of what led a man who had fought and bled repeatedly for American Independence to side with the British. Malcolm does not attempt to excuse Arnold's treason - stating quite simply in the final chapter of her work that she considers his choice of defection to be deplorable; but arguing cogently that history - and Benedict Arnold himself - deserve that his actions be understood, especially when not condoned. To understand Benedict Arnold's betrayal of the nascent United States, I would highly recommend this book.

[Wayland Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Odds are good you've at least heard of Benedict Arnold, and know he betrayed the American Revolution. He did, but there is a little bit more to the story. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he did the right thing. He 100% didn't. But this book studies his life and his career and if you read this and don't have at least a moment of either, "Ok, i get this a little," you've probably decided to not listen to the author's arguments before you picked up the book.

Arnold served courageously for the early part of the Revolution. He was well regarded by Washington himself. But he wasn't exactly the most politic of men, and he made enemies, who, in turn, made up stories about him, or exaggerated things he did. Passed over for promotion (which shocked Washington) and accused of enriching himself (he paid a lot of the soldiers he recruited with his own money), Arnold finally changed sides when his honor couldn't bear any more.

Again, I'm not making him out to be a hero. He wasn't in the end. But as usual, there's more to the story than you might have heard.

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an a—hole.

Benedict Arnold will probably always be America’s archvillain. We even became friends with the king after the war was over.

Joyce Lee Malcolm’s book is another look at Arnold’s life to try and see the full picture of how Arnold went from true hero to turncoat. It cannot but stated enough that Arnold was truly heroic for much of the American Revolution. There is a plausible argument that we may not have won the war without him.

When you dig into his life, like Malcolm and James Kirby Martin (I interviewed him!) have, it becomes clear that Arnold was just kind of a jerk his whole life. Yes, there may be some reasons for him to feel slighted, but to completely turn his back on his country still doesn’t quite make sense. Many other officers during the war faced similar affronts but never did what he did. Ultimately, we will probably never know. And as such, Benedict Arnold will always be the villain.

[Debra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is hard to review. I love a good story about Arnold and this doesn't disappoint. I most appreciated she quoted from so many of his letters so I could see exactly what he said...however that also seemed lazy since most other historians will analyze and interpret the letters more than Malcolm does. I appreciated her maps at the start of some chapters, especially the map on Andre's route which I had not seen before and have tried to incorrectly map on my own. For all my reading I always thought Andre was captured west of the Hudson River.

Anyway. I find Arnold fascinating and I have read multiple biographies about him. I enjoyed a narrative that explains his actions and doesn't vilify him since he is so complicated. He is the ultimate insider threat, and yet his actions are not shocking considering the way he was repeatedly treated by Congress.

I dinged a star for extremely poor editing and typos early on in the book but then it seemed to clear up.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Malcolm presents a balanced biography of Revolutionary era patriot and then turncoat Benedict Arnold. It seems based on what she writes that Arnold's personality did not endear him to many colleagues, except perhaps General Washington. Yet his military exploits were significant ... but not recognized sufficiently for Arnold. That non-recognition, especially in comparison to credit being given to others, and to Congress' continued concern over Arnold's financial dealings, seems to have led to his making overtures to the British authorities ... and the rest, as they say, is history.

This bio a compelling read .., it fills out many details in what many of us learned as a rather one-dimensional story. Congratulations to Joyce Lee Malcolm on this superb contribution to history of early America!

[Jonathan Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book attempts to make Benedict Arnold sympathetic, having been a great, loyal soldier… until he wasn’t. I’m not convinced he gets the credit the author wishes to bestow in light of that famous betrayal. However, the book was a good primer on the controversy itself and what led Arnold to turn his back his country (it’s more nuanced than I originally believed). The book meandered through other history where Arnold was not necessarily front and center a lot, but the last chapters detailing the plot are sound and I enjoyed them a lot.

[Cynthia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent biography. I became interested in reading it through Claire Frasier (of Outlander) 's thoughts on him. He was a gallant and courageous commander who joined and led his troops in battle and spent his personal monies on his soldiers. He was treated despicably by the Pennsylvania Continental Congress which eventually led to his desertion. No doubt the Revolutionary War would have been won sooner had his achievements been recognized and had he been better treated. I highly recommend this to anyone who wants a better understanding of the man.

[Dr. Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title of this book by Joyce Lee Malcolm says it all. Benedict Arnold was a “tragedy.” Malcolm wonders why Arnold’s defection among many garnered such rage, but she spells it out very clearly. The treatment of Arnold was abhorrent — not being paid, spending so much time waiting on his trial to mention just two horrors. After reading this, I add the contents to my other recent American history reads that make me realize anew that this country’s creation is a miracle. I will look for other books and articles about Hannah Arnold and possibly Peggy Shippen to understand more about Arnold.

[Jake Hauser · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good read. Informative and entertaining. The author makes some presumptuous statements about the guilt or innocence of certain persons without sufficient evidence, and repeats his assertions as if they were established fact. But that does tend to come up in biography, particularly to do with controversial figures. All the same, commendably researched and well written. Read with companion works.

[Brandon Mennenoh · Rating 4 out of 5]

All we learned about Benedict Arnold in history class was that he was a traitor and that's it. I can also recall references to that in pop culture. I enjoyed this book because of the different perspectives on both Benedict's life and the Revolutionary War as a whole. Ms. Malcolm's work is a reminder that there is always more to the story and major, dramatic shifts in a person's life do not just happen; there is always a build up to that moment.

[Audreyg · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough, and excellent, analysis of how Benedict Arnold became the traitor that he did. The reasons are good, and after reading this, I'm surprised that more people didn't go down his path.

Removed one star for lack of maps detailing his many military and naval accomplishments prior to his choice to help the British.

[Julie Perham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you learn about Benedict Arnold in school? If you did, and all you learned is that he was a traitor, you really don't know the whole story. I found this book fascinating, not only because of what I learned about Arnold, but also about the behind the scenes conflicts between the Continental Congress and the army.

I highly recommend it!