In the last edition, we learned about proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving. Today, we will learn about the unstoppable force that motivated Abraham Lincoln to issue the proclamation which created the federal holiday celebrating the feast of Thanksgiving.

In this day and age of the hypothetical “war on women,” it is helpful to draw upon examples in U.S. History when women played a key role. And this is definitely one such example. Did you know that one of the most influential of all magazine editors of the 1800’s was a woman? Did you know that we have that same woman to thank for establishing a holiday which celebrates the relationship created between the Pilgrims and members of the Wampanoag nation. While both of those facts may be true, you can bet if Thanksgiving is celebrated at all in your child’s school there will certainly be no mention of Sarah Josepha Hale. It is, therefore, my pleasure to fill you in about the good Mrs. Hale’s accomplishments and efforts.

Who was Sarah Josepha Hale? Born in New Hampshire in 1788, you most likely have heard a certain nursery rhyme she authored. That would be “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” and that would be enough of a legacy for most. But Sarah Josepha Hale was so much more. Educated by her mother, her brother, her husband and herself, Sarah Josepha Hale was a poet, a novelist, as well as an abolitionist and an advocate of certain rights for women. When her husband suddenly died of a stroke, Sarah was left with 5 very young children when she was only 34 herself.

This, of course, was during a time when women were not professionals, empire builders, or thought to be able to complete with men in the workplace. Many widows relied on charity, ran home based buisnesses, performing tasks such as spinning and weaving, or ran charity schools. While things were slowly beginning to change because of industrialization, women were still clearly religated to meek and subservient roles.  Sarah hoped she could support her family of six with her mind and a pen. She began by with collection of poems she had written. At that time, women authors were few and far between. Sarah sought assistance from members of the her husband’s Free Masons lodge. The book, published in 1823,  carried the rather taunting title The Genius of Oblivion.  It was in the second poetry collection, Poems for Our Children, published in 1830 which contained “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” Before the second collection was published, she published a novel in 1827 entitled Northwood: Life North and South. It was in this novel, which included rich contextual descriptions of New England life that we can first see Sarah’s fascination with Thanksgiving.

The novel contained chapters entitled a Thanksgiving Sermon, as well as a Thanksgiving Dinner. The dinner that she detailed was characteristic of many Thanksgiving dinners served in New England. Let’s learn about what Sarah thought to include in the feast that was prepared without the modern benefits of life:  “And now for our Thanksgiving dinner. A long table, formed by placing two of the ordinary size together, was set forth in the parlor; which being the best room, and ornamented with the best furniture, was seldom used, except on important occasions. The finishing of the parlor was in a much better manner than that of any other apartment in the house; the wood work was painted cream color, and the plaster walls ornamented with paper hangings of gay tints and curious devices…The table, covered with a damask cloth, vieing in whiteness, and nearly equaling in texture, the finest imported, though spun, woven and bleached by Mrs. Romilly’s own hand, was now intended for the whole household, every child having a seat on this occasion; and the more the better, it being considered an honor for a man to sit down to his Thanksgiving dinner surrounded by a large family.

Proclamations of Prayer and Thanksgiving

As we move into the Thanksgiving season, I thought you might be interested to learn about Thanksgiving Proclamations. In the next edition, we will learn about proclamations related to the actual celebration of Thanksgiving. In this edition, we will focus instead on proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving.

As committees of correspondence and legislative bodies not under the control of the British formed throughout the American Colonies, it was not unusual for them to call for a day of prayer, fasting, or thanksgiving. Does that surprise you in this day and age when any type of prayer or thanks to God is deemed politically incorrect? Imagine the coverage that would ensue if a legislative body called for citizens to ask for God’s guidance or to be unabashedly thankful for the country in which we live?  

Well, let’s examine what took place as the Virginia House of Burgesses designated May 24, 1774 as a Day of Fasting and Prayer. They did so in response to legislation passed by the British Parliament which closed the port of Boston. The legislation, known as the Boston Port Act, was known to the British as one of “the Coercive Acts.” However, the Americans referred to those acts using a very different, but equally charged, word. They referred to them as “the Intolerable Acts.” By the way, you can read all of the Intolerable Acts on BingoforPatriots.com. Closure of the port brought great hardship upon the townspeople of Boston, and the Virginia House of Burgesses decided to issue a proclamation in support of their fellow colonists.

The text of the proclamation read as follows: “This House being deeply impressed with Apprehension of the great Dangers to be derived to British America, from the hostile Invasion of the City of Boston, in our Sister Colony of Massachusetts Bay, whose Commerce and Harbour are on the 1st Day of June next to be stopped by an armed Force, deem it highly necessary that the said first Day of June be set apart by the Members of this House as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine Interposition for averting the heavy Calamity, which threatens Destruction to our civil Rights, and the Evils of civil War; to give us one Heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper Means, every Injury to American Rights, and that the Minds of his Majesty and his Parliament may be inspired from above with Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, to remove from the loyal People of America all Cause of Danger from a continued Pursuit of Measures pregnant with their Ruin.”

Thomas Jefferson latter explained that the younger members of House of Burgesses felt compelled to issue the proclamation: “We must boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with Massachusetts, determined to meet and consult on the proper measures in the council chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room. We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distresses in the war of 55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help therefore of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the Port bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, to implore heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and parliament to moderation and justice.

What Does Your Child Know About Thomas Jefferson? (23 AHMP Podcast)

Many people have asked me what launched me on my campaign to inspire adults to learn more about the Founding and Founding Documents? Of course, the simple answer is so they can educate their own children about information which will either be poorly taught to them in school or not taught to them at all. I also believe that it is critical for us to grasp the mounting level of tyranny that the Founders experienced under British rule, and how it served as basis for many of the principles and guarantees they incorporated into our Founding Documents. The plethora of stories from the colonial and founding periods of our nation are also filled with wit and wisdom that we can continue to learn from today.

Today’s podcast is a bit about the spark that ignited my mission, as well as why you MUST make it a priority to teach your children, your grandchildren, and others around you about the Founding, our Founding Documents, as well as the amazing country in which they live.

“What exactly do you know about Thomas Jefferson?” That simple question started me on a quest. It was the summer of 2011, and Congress was in the midst of yet another debate as to whether the debt ceiling should once again be raised. I asked that question of my son who had recently completed the eighth grade. As we discussed the debate, I became amazed by some of the basic information that he did not seem to know. For example, he could not describe exactly how a piece of legislation should move through the Congress, whether or not it was permissible for members of the House and the Senate to negotiate with each other during the time that the legislation is being constructed, whether those discussions were supposed to take place behind closed doors, and if citizens should be able to review the text of proposed legislation before the actual debate began. I began to quiz him about the people and the documents associated with the founding of our country, and my amazement grew further still. I was particularly surprised because he was an avid follower of all things historical. He had even received history-related awards in the fifth and the eighth grades during which time the history of our country was the focus of the Social Studies curriculum. His answer to my question about Thomas Jefferson? He recalled that Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence, he was the third President of the United States, and he owned slaves. I was dumbfounded. What about authoring the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom or founding the University of Virginia? Jefferson considered those two items, as well as authoring the Declaration, to be so important that he included them as an epitaph on his grave stone. He did not even bother to mention the presidency as one of his accomplishments. Upon further questioning I decided he knew far less about Jefferson than I expected.

Later that day I decided to ask my other children what they knew about Thomas Jefferson. My middle child, who had just completed the sixth grade, told me that when she studied U.S. History in the fifth grade, there was no particular focus on any individual. By the way, fifth grade is the year when the colonial and founding periods are the focus of the Social Science curriculum in most schools. She could have learned specifically about Jefferson if she had chosen him to be the topic of her independent study project for Social Studies, but she instead chose to learn more about the Sugar Act. She could, however, recite a dearth of extraneous information about Jefferson which she had memorized from a book I bought for her about the American Revolution. My youngest child, who had just finished 2nd grade, responded to my question by asking, “Isn’t he the guy with the kite?”

If I was concerned about what had been taught to my ch...

22 AHMP: Conservative Opposition to Establishing a Department of Education

What were the thoughts of Founding Fathers with respect to the subject of education? How was race used as a motivating factor for the establishment of the Department of Education? What conservative principles served as the basis for objections to the collection of statistics regarding education and predicted what the Department of Education has grown into today? What was the surprising twist in the debate over establishing a new department in the Federal Government? We will learn the answers to these questions in this edition.

After taking the summer months off to spend time with my family, I thought I would begin with a podcast or two about what is, and is not, taught about the Founding and our Founding Documents in classrooms across this great nation. While researching that material, I came across a debate which embodies the struggle between those who seek to retain the limited nature of the Federal Government, and those who believe that an expanded centralized government is beneficial for all citizens. That debate has raged on since the Federal Convention, but this story took place after the Civil War. There is even an interesting twist to this story that I’ll tell you about at the end of the podcast.

Let’s begin by hearing quotes from Locke and Montesquieu about education. You will recall that they were philosophers who the Framers often referred to in in their writings, as well as relied upon while creating our Founding Documents.

John Locke wrote about education: “That the Difference to be found in the Manners and Abilities of Men is owing more to their Education than to any Thing else, we have reason to conclude, that great Care is to be had of the forming Children’s Minds, and giving them that Seasoning early, which shall influence their Lives always after:”

In Book Number 4 of his Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu noted that “The laws of education are the first impressions we receive; and as they prepare us for civil life, every private family ought to be governed by the plan of that great household which comprehends them all… It is in a republican government that the whole power of education is required… This virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtues; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself. This love is peculiar to democracies. In these alone the government is entrusted to private citizens. Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it. Has it ever been known that kings were not fond of monarchy, or that despotic princes hated arbitrary power? Everything therefore depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education: but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.”

Next, let’s consider statements made by a few of the Founding Fathers themselves:

In 1749, Benjamin Franklin quoted philosophers such as Milton, Locke, and Octavo, in his Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania. He began his proposal by saying: “The good Education of Youth has been esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths. Almost all Governments have therefore made it a principal Object of their Attention, to establish and endow with proper Revenues, such Seminaries of Learning, as might supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country.”

Specifically with respect to the subject of History, Franklin thought that “History will also give Occasion to expatiate on the Advantage ...

 

21 AHMP The Signing of the Declaration

In celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I thought you might like to hear a fascinating recount of the events that surrounded the signing. It was published in Scribner’s Monthly in July of 1876, and the article which is entitled “The Story of the Signing” will be included in a new colonial style pamphlet that I will be publishing about the Declaration in a few weeks. Stay tuned for more information about that, but for now I am proud to tell you the “Story of the Signing”:

“In the days of the Continental Congress the delegates used to travel to the capital, at the beginning of each session, from their several homes, usually on horseback ; fording streams, sleeping at miserable country inns, sometimes weather-bound for days, sometimes making circuits to avoid threatened dangers, sometimes accomplishing forced marches to reach Philadelphia in time for some special vote.

There lie before me the unpublished papers of one of the signers of the great Declaration, and these papers comprise the diaries of several such journeys. Their simple records rarely include bursts of patriotism or predictions of national glory, but they contain many plaintive chronicles of bad beds and worse food, mingled with pleasant glimpses of wayside chat, and now and then a bit of character-painting that recalls the jovial narratives of Fielding.

Sometimes they give a passing rumor of ‘the glorious news of the surrendering of the Colonel of the Queen’s Dragoons with his whole army,’ but more commonly they celebrate ‘milk toddy and bread and butter’ after a wetting, or ‘the best dish of Bohea tea I have drank for a twelvemonth.’ When they arrived at Philadelphia, the delegates put up their horses, changed their riding gear for those habiliments which Trumbull has immortalized, and gathered to Independence Hall to greet their brother delegates, to interchange the gossip of the day, to repeat Dr. Franklin’s last anecdote or Francis Hopkinson’s last gibe; then proceeding, when the business of the day was opened, to lay the foundation for a new nation.

‘Before the 19th of April, 1775,’ said Jefferson, ‘I had never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from the mothercountry.’ Washington said : ‘When I first took command of the army (July 3, 1775), I abhorred the idea of independence ; but I am now fully convinced that nothing else will save us.’ It is only by dwelling on such words as these that we can measure that vast educational process which brought the American people to the Declaration of Independence, in 1776.

The Continental Congress, in the earlier months of that year, had for many days been steadily drifting on toward the distinct assertion of separate sovereignty, and had declared it irreconcilable with reason and a good conscience for the colonists to take the oaths required for the support of the Government under the Crown of Great Britain. But it was not till the 7th of June, that Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, rose and read these resolutions:

‘That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and theState of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

‘That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign alliances.

‘That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective colonies for their consideration and approbation.’

These resolutions were presented under direct instructions from the Virginia Assembly, the delegates from that colony selecting Mr. Lee as their spokesman.[1] They were at once seconded, probably after previous

20 AHMP Benedict Arnold and the 25th of September

Was there a consequence for Benedict Arnold’s egregious behavior in Philadelphia? How did the Great Chain that we learned about in a previous episode factor into Arnold’s plot to surrender West Point to the British? What were the dramatic events that took place on that fateful day in September, 1780,

Benedict Arnold’s betrayal of his country is well known. What is more interesting, perhaps, is the time immediately preceding what he anticipated to be the surrender West Point to the British, as well as what happened as the plan began to unravel. Let’s quickly review what occurred from the point in time that we left off in the last episode and move quickly through the events of the first half of 1780.

I concluded the previous podcast with the statement of J.J. Thomas. Mr. Thomas was a waggoneer who had transported confiscated property from storage in Philadelphia to the port. He did so under orders from Benedict Arnold who promptly tried to cheat the waggoneer out of several days’ pay. Arnold, who had become totally absorbed in his role as Supreme Commander of the United States in Philadelphia, was seemingly oblivious to the fact that residents such as Mr. Thomas did not take lightly to being cheated given their awareness of his opulent lifestyle.

Arnold had seized one of the finest homes in Philadelphia, formerly owned by Richard Penn and occupied by British General Howe, for his residence and command center. He traveled throughout the economically embattled city in what was known as a “horse and four” which was a carriage drawn by four horses. He had servants galore and entered into a relationship with Peggy Shippen who was one of the most socially prominent young women in Philadelphia. So, it is no surprise that J.J. Thomas would cooperate with the investigation conducted by the Supreme Executive Council of Philadelphia. It should also be no surprise that the lifestyle Arnold lived, and his loss of records during the retreat from Quebec and the resulting demand from Congress that he repay funds for which he had no records, created an ever mounting debt for Arnold. Even selling the private property of others on the black market did not save Benedict Arnold from his own poor choices.

After the investigation by the Council in Philadelphia, the Congress took up the matter under court martial proceedings. The matter dragged on for almost a year. In the end, Arnold was convicted of several counts originally identified by the Council in Philadelphia. On April 5, 1780, George Washington summarized the matter in this daily address known as the General Orders. It read as follows:

“At a General Court Martial whereof Major General Howe was President, held on the 1st. of June last at Middle Brook and afterwards at Morristown from the 23rd. of December to the 26th. of January, in consequence of a resolution of the Honorable the Congress, for the trial of Major General Arnold on the following Articles contained in the proceedings of the Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania at the City of Philadelphia the 3rd. of February 1779. Vizt.,

First. That while in the Camp of General Washington at Valley Forge last spring, he gave permission to a Vessel belonging to persons then voluntarily residing in this City, with the enemy, and of disaffected characters to come into a Port of the United States without the knowledge of the authority of the State or of the Commander in Chief tho’ then present.

2nd. In having shut up the Shops and stores on his arrival in the City, so as even to prevent officers of the army from purchasing, while he privately made considerable purchases for his own benefit as is alledged and believed.

3rd. In imposing menial offices upon the sons of Freemen of this State,

 

t

19 AHMP Benedict Arnold A Thief in Command

How did Benedict Arnold abuse his role as the “Commander in Chief of the United States of American, in the city of Philadelphia” for his personal gain? Will the information that we have about his intimate relationships confirm that he is a narcissist? What colonial body investigated his actions and drove him from the city? We will learn the answer to those questions in this episode.

In the past two editions, we have learned about how Benedict Arnold’s narcissism prompted him to clash with Ethan Allen and the Continental Congress. We have also learned how his risk taking behavior led to a reputation for valor, but also how the troops who served under him were placed in harm’s way because of the goals he set.

But how did he change after he was placed in a position of power that was not associated with a battlefield? The part of his life that had thrilled him since he was a teenager was taken away from him after a third injury to the same leg during the Battle of Saratoga. Although he remained a part of the military, his new role would involve interacting with the residents of Philadelphia rather than the enemy. I suspect the answer is that it left him bored and in a role where his resentments were left to fester. In addition, we will come to learn that he will be placed in a position of power in which he had free resign to indulge perhaps the worst of his fatal flaws: a wicked combination of avarice and the willingness to sacrifice those around him for his own gain.

Amongst his other accusations of Benedict Arnold, John Brown once prophetically said: “Money is this man’s God, and to get enough of it he would sacrifice his country.”  Although the Congressional record described Brown’s other allegations of Arnold as “cruel” and “groundless”, he seems to have been spot on with that particular point.

After Arnold was again wounded in the Battle of Saratoga, his sacrifice was barely acknowledged by General Gates in a letter to the Continental Congress. Of course, Gates’ failure to acknowledge Arnold was in no small part because Arnold clashed with Gates over power and strategic decision-making just as he had with Ethan Allen. The difference at Saratoga was that Gates was clearly the superior officer, and, like Arnold, sought recognition for his leadership and valor. Therefore, he was only too willing to minimize any credit which rightly belonged to Arnold. I might add that there is some controversy as to whether Arnold was even present on the field during certain key points of the battle. But that is a podcast unto itself!

Arnold once again sought rescue from George Washington. Washington had been angered by Gates’ decision to write of his victory directly to the Continental Congress, and he suspected that Gates sought to replace him as the Commander of the Continental Army. As you will recall from the previous episode, Arnold attempted to resign because of his nonpromotion and wrote to Washington of the “ingratitude of my country.” No doubt that his experience at the Battle of Saratoga only served to deepen his resentments. Due to Arnold’s physical limitations caused by multiple injuries in battle, Washington decided to place him at Philadelphia in the role of military commander after the British withdrew from the city in June, 1778.

On June 19, 1778, Washington wrote the following letter Arnold: “You are immediately to proceed to Philadelphia and take the command of the troops there. The principal objects of your command you will send specified in the inclosed resolve of Congress of the 4th instant;  which you will carefully execute. You will take every prudent step in your power, to preserve tranquillity and order in the city, and give security to individuals of every class and description; restraining as far as possible,

 18 AHMP: Benedict Arnold The Narcissist

In edition 17 of this podcast, we learned about a bevy of personality traits, and dare I say flaws, of Benedict Arnold. Today we will explore how those characteristics or propensities led him down the path to engage in a drama royal which involved George Washington and the Continental Congress, as well as engage in what can be viewed as either extreme acts of valor or unnecessary risk taking due to unrealistic views of the self. In Arnold’s case, that would mean viewing one’s self as having almost super human capabilities on the field of battle.

Benedict Arnold’s personality was indeed ripe with negative traits or issues. Included in those were:

Poor impulse control.

Narcissism, grandiose thinking, and other issues related to an inflated sense of self.

Anger management issues, and the willingness to physically punish and humiliate those whom were under his control.

Significant risk taking behavior which placed himself and others in peril.

Assuring personal gain to the detriment of those around him.

However, to really grasp how those traits and issues negatively impacted his life, we must study his actions at pivotal points. In particular, those moments which were either situationally stressful (such as a battle) or those which were threatening to his sense of self.

We will rejoin Benedict Arnold’s journey in the year 1777.  By that time, he had become well known for his willingness to engage the enemy, his own physical sacrifice for the cause, and unfortunately for his temper. His confrontational and combative behavior with other officers and members of Congress had already caused him to not be selected for leadership positions such as that in the primary unit of the Quebec campaign, and it would soon cause him to be “overlooked” to receive a promotion.

In February, 1777, he was not included in a list of men promoted to major general. Five men with less seniority, and certainly less notoriety, were instead honored with that title. From that moment on, the seeds of a negative spiral would be sewn which ultimately led to his defection.

The Journals of the Continental Congress noted on Wednesday, February 19, 1777:

“Congress proceeded to the election of three five majors general; and the ballots being taken, the following gentlemen were duly elected: Lord Stirling, Thomas Mifflin, Arthur St. Clair, Adam Stephen, Benjamin Lincoln.”

To make matters worse, at least in the eyes of Benedict Arnold, the Congress acted again just two days later. From Journals of the Continental Congress on February 21, 1777: “Congress proceeded to the election of brigadiers general and the ballots being taken, the following gentlemen were elected. (It being previously agreed that their rank be settled after the election is made.) Colonel Enoch Poor, Colonel J. Glover, Colonel J. Patterson, Colonel Anthony Wayne, Colonel James Mitchel Varnum, Colonel John P. De Haas, Colonel G. Weedon, Colonel P. Muhlenberg, Colonel J. Cadwalader, and Colonel W. Woodford. Resolved, That the rank of the foregoing brigadiers general, and that of Brigadier General Nash, be appointed settled to morrow.”

The number of men who had been promoted, which did not include Benedict Arnold had jumped from five to fifteen. Arnold was, needless to say, furious. Although the second group had only been promoted to Arnold’s then current level, certainly the Congress could have taken a moment to amend the promotions of the 19th, if Arnold’s name had been accidentally left of the list.

We are able to understand Arnold’s level of distress, and the accompanying drama which ensued, in no small part because of George Washington and his aide-de-camps. The staff of a general at that time was often thought of as something akin to his military fa...

17 AHMP The Fatal Flaws of Benedict Arnold

My question today is simple: What fatal flaws of Benedict Arnold’s personality contributed to his decision to transform from an ardent patriot into our country’s most well-known traitor? We will explore this question as we travel with him from his youth through the Continental Army’s 1775 invasion of Canada in this episode.

A long favored topic amongst mental health professionals is whether someone can truly make a significant change during the course of treatment. It is certain that the individual we are talking about today, Benedict Arnold, was never in therapy. In fact, it wasn’t even available to him. Although topics such as the soul, psyche, and the mind have long been discussed by philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Locke and Descartes, and Founder Benjamin Rush advocated humane treatment for the mentally ill in America’s first textbook of psychiatry: Medical Inquiries and Observations Upon Diseases of the Mind,  individual analysis in a clinical setting didn’t really get going until the late 1800’s with the work of Freud and others. Moreover, people with certain personality features or types, such as are evident in individuals similar to Benedict Arnold, are fairly unlikely to make significant change. In fact, they are ego-syntonic. Meaning that they are fairly comfortable in their own skin and seeing the world through the glasses which they have been given.‘

Let’s delve into this edition’s story.  You’ll get a glimpse of how Benedict Arnold’s  personality traits were visible in his youth and early adulthood, and then blossomed (so to speak) and continued to evolve during his  adulthood…In the next episode, we will continue to follow those traits and the resulting patterns thereof, and learn how they led to the ultimate betrayal of those around him and his country.

The name “Benedict Arnold” is synonymous with the word “traitor.” let’s step back and learn about his beginnings. Born in Norwich, Connecticut in 1741, Benedict Arnold had all the pedigrees to be one of the greatest heroes of the American Revolution. Did you know that his great-great-grandfather, William Arnold, was one of the 13 original settlers of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations? His grandfather, also named Benedict, was no slouch either. He was the first Governor of Rhode Island. His mother has been described as a woman with strength, character, and almost saintly qualities, while his father spent much of his money in local taverns. Mounting family debt, and a lack of dedication to his studies, caused his mother to remove him from a private school education which would have paved the way to a degree from Yale. Arnold sought permission to enter the provincial militia during the French and Indian War, but his mother refused. When he reached the age of 16, he was allowed to join the local militia’s plan to enter into the battle near at Fort McHenry, but his enlistment lasted only 13 days after the group learned of the French slaughter of British and colonial forces at the fort. Upon his return, Arnold found himself placed by his mother as an apprentice for her cousins Joshua and Daniel Lathrop who were apothecaries in  Norwich. Arnold must have been so intoxicated by the thrill of battle that he slipped away from his apprenticeship multiple times to fight in the French and Indian War.  Both his lack of focus on his studies, as well as his willingness to run away from his apprenticeship could both be thought of as examples of poor impulse control. Something which would plague Arnold throughout his life. The Lathrops were kind enough to loan the now 21 year old Benedict the money to launch his own apothecary establishment in 1762. Although he began adulthood in the fairly mundane professions of an apothecary and bookseller,

16 AHMP The Great Chain

What was the greatest barrier built by the Continental forces on the Hudson River? What do we know about the patriot who designed and oversaw the construction of that barrier?  Let’s learn the answer to those questions in this episode.

 In the 15th episode of American History for the Modern Patriot, we learned about several barriers constructed by the Continental forces to restrict the movement of the British Navy on the Hudson River. Those included a chevaux-de-frise which stretched between Fort Lee and  Fort Washington, a chain that floated between Forts Montgomery and Clinton, as well as another chevaux-de-frise  which was constructed between Plum Point and Pollepel Island.  We also learned about an extremely successful attack on several British ships by colonial fire rafts. Today we will learn about the greatest of all barriers on the Hudson. It happens to be called “The Great Chain.”

The fact that such a chain could be constructed in 1778 is remarkable in and of itself. However, it is what was done with the chain that is truly astonishing. The chain was ultimately strung across the Hudson River and floated between capstans affixed on  Constitution Island and West Point.

From the earliest recommendations of New Yorkers Major Christopher Tappen and Colonel James Clinton, as to how to best defend the Hudson and obstruct the movement of British, a chain stretching between the placement of Fort Constitution and West Point had been envisioned.

For whatever reason, the British chose not to move up the Hudson after easily overtaking Forts Montgomery and Clinton, and instead returned to New York City. Undaunted by the sweeping defeats at those forts, George Washington and his top generals in the area quickly began thinking about new obstructions which could be built along the Hudson.

On November 24th, 1777 General James Clinton wrote to General Gates: “I know of no other method of obstructing the passage of Hudson’s River, but by Chevaux-de-frise, Chains, and Booms, well defended by heavy artillery and strong works on the shore. The former is impracticable at any place lower down than where the present are, near this place, and even there, the river is rather too wide to admit of their being properly defined; they may, however, when completed, be a very considerable obstruction. This with a Chain or boom at a part of the river called the West Point, where it is quite narrow and the wind, owing to the crookedness of the River, very uncertain, with proper works on the shore to defend it and water-batteries calculated to annoy Shipping, would, in my opinion, perfectly obstruct the navigation.”

Of course, you might recall this suggestion had been previously made by Jacobus Van Zandt. Approximately 16 months before General Clinton’s letter, Van Zandt had favored placing a chain near Fort Constitution instead of Fort Montgomery. However, the plans for the proposed installation were so extensive, not to mention expensive, that work had focused on Fort Montgomery.

You might also recall from the previous episode that fire ships or rafts had been a popular method of damage or obstruction during the revolution. It had been suggested by Governor George Clinton in July, 1776, that a “chain” so to speak of fire vessels be used in the same place favored by Van Zandt to prevent the British from moving up the Hudson. He wrote to Washington “I have dispatched Expresses to owners of sloops and boats 20 miles up the west side of the river, ordering them down to Fort Constitution, as I believe by drawing a chain of them across the narrowest part of the river and fixing them properly, should the enemy shipping attempt passing by, they would answer a most valuable purpose.”

As 1777 drew to a close, George Washington was writing letters of his own.