Morrison's Pensions
Benedict
Arnold’s Pittsfield Nemesis
Bicentennial Berkshire, Nov. 17, 1976, By Denis Lesieur
Each
generation writes its own history and ours is no exception. Despite
continuous efforts at objectivity, historians and their work must necessarily
reflect the needs and values of the times in which they live. As the present
changes, so does our view of the past.
And
so does our understanding of the tragic turbulent relationship of John Brown
of Pittsfield and Benedict Arnold. A brave battlefield officer and brilliant
military tactician, Brown figured prominently in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga
and Burgoyne’s defeat at Saratoga. Yet within a few years of his
death in 1780, Brown and his varied Accomplishments all but faded from public
memory, relegated to a few historical footnotes.
Except
for one fascinating fact: his rabid rivalry with Benedict Arnold. Ironically,
Brown has escaped obscurity mostly because of the man he hated above all others. Until
Sept 25, 1780, their bitter battles remained a subject of continuing controversy,
with public support for both men. On that day, however, Benedict Arnold
fled to the British, becoming American’s ultimate traitor, it’s supreme
villain. And on that day, John Brown became a hero, the “brave accuser
of Benedict Arnold.”
Within
the last few years, however, historical opinion has slowly shifted. Perhaps
as our lives have grown more complex, we have become correspondingly more able,
and willing, to recognize complexity in others. Also, the progressive
disillusionment of many Americans with their leaders has bred in many historians
a similar disenchantment with history’s heroes, and an intensifying interest
in it darker figures. As a result, John Brown and Benedict Arnold are gradually
emerging as much more complicated, land human, individuals than permitted in
the traditional, one-dimensional view.
Brown
and Arnold were both driven men, fired by ruthless ambition that left little
room for self-doubt or opposition. A man of piercing intelligence and driving
energy, Arnold rose from the son of an alcoholic, bankrupt sea captain to become
a wealthy merchant in 10 short tumultuous years. He was an essentially
unpleasant but magnetic figure, able to attract or repel men with equal ease.
The
tall, handsome John Brown’s quiet assurance was in sharp contrast to Arnold’s
brittle aggressiveness. The son a prominent Sandisfield family, he was
a Yale graduate who seemed equally at ease with roughened frontier farmers and
with polished well-educated gentlemen. Enjoying a status and sophistication
which Arnold desperately sought but never captured, Brown nevertheless proved
as restless and dissatisfied as Arnold. His casual confidence masked a
near-obsession with achievement that could suddenly erupt into violent, impulsive
action.
Less
than a year after his arrival in Pittsfield in early 1773, Brown was balancing
a thriving law practice with an increasing involvement in politics. Appointment
to the powerful local Committee of Correspondence, in constant contact with Boston,
gave Brown a vital link with the eastern radicals. Selection to the Massachusetts
Provincial Congress in October 1774 confirmed his position as a political intermediary
between the colony’s urban and rural patriots. Within several months,
however, Brown would adopt a far different, and dangerous, role.
The
strategic significance and untapped natural wealth of the vast Canadian wilderness
attracted and astonishing array of profiteers, patriots, and men who were a blend
of both. Brown and Arnold were both knowledgeable about Canada and they
quickly gravitated to the center of colonial efforts at conquering it. They
soon found themselves on a collision course.
Trouble
began early, in May of 1775. Angered by Arnold’s arrogant assertion
of authority over recently captured Fort Ticonderoga, Brown, as a strong supporter
of the displaced Ethan Allen, struck back hard. Combining vocal and often
venomous, criticism of Arnold with quiet, relentless political pressure, Brown
did much to cost Arnold control of Ticonderoga, as well as relegating his part
in its capture to a minor, even negative role. Stripped of power and pride,
a humiliated and frustrated Arnold stood by helplessly while many of his disbanded
soldiers re-enlisted, under the command of John Brown, his new enemy.
As
dislike and distrust deepened into hatred, the encounters between Arnold and
Brown proved increasingly explosive. Days before a near-hopeless attack
against the fortress city of Quebec, the ragged remnants of the American invasion
army were torn by mutiny. Accusing Arnold of risking their lives solely
for his own advancement, three of his officers and their man demanded an independent
command under another field officer. While inconclusive, the evidence points
to John Brown as that officer, and instigator of the revolt.
Near
the breaking point, Brown resigned his commission in the winter of 1777 and came
back to Pittsfield. There, on April 2, he published a scathing indictment
of Arnold’s character and ability. The extremity of the charges,
ranging from the promotion of smallpox through inoculation to the massacre of
entire villages of women and children, only served to destroy Brown’s credibility. One
phrase, though, would come to echo prophetically in future years; “Money
is this man’s god, land to get enough of it he would sacrifice his country.”
Shocked
by these “wicked lies”, Congress finally ordered a hearing. But
Brown was not summoned, nor any of his witnesses, although Arnold personally
presented his defense. The outcome was predictable. In May 1777,
the Congressional Board of War ruled that Arnold had been “ . . . cruelly
and groundlessly aspersed . . . “ Quick congressional approval of
the report officially closed the case.
Ironically,
Arnold paid a heavier price for the ruling than Brown. The charges lingered
on, not so much from any validity as from the willingness of men to believe in
Arnold’s guilt. They would be one more grievance for Arnold to brood
over, to turn him against his country.
Brown,
bitter of his mistreatment and haunted by a continuing hatred for Arnold, nevertheless,
retained the friendship and support of most Berkshirites. By the fall of
1777, he won appointment as a colonel in the Berkshire Militia, serving brilliantly
in the field against Burgoyne. Then, in autumn of 1780, restless after
two years of prosperous but quiet civilian life, Brown volunteered to lead a
militia company against a force of Indians and Tories ravaging the Mohawk Valley
in New York State. One October 19—his 36th birthday and a little
over a month after Arnold’s treason—Brown, with only 130 men, confronted
over 1,000 enemy troops.
In
savage fighting lasting most of the day, 40 Americans were killed, Brown among
them. He died tragically, but as a hero, vindicated by Arnold’s
treason, and his own courage.
Return to opening page of Morrison's Pensions