By Rakashi Chand, Reader Services

Unlike any other historical figure, Benedict Arnold’s contributions to the Patriotic Cause were so great that, had he not committed treason, history might have depicted him as a Founding Father. His accomplishments cannot be negated, his leadership and skill as a solider were unsurpassed, and his men loved him; had he been a less admired man, perhaps his treachery would have been less painful. The hero of the Battle of Saratoga, Arnold’s military success came at high costs, his war wounds leaving him lame and requiring the use of a cane throughout his life. Arnold fought courageously and boldly on the battlefield, the ‘Warrior’ of the Continental army, he was greatly admired and respected by his troops. So why would a man of such heroism resort to treason?

Well, perhaps it had to do with his passionate heart.

In late 1776, George Washington sent Arnold to Providence to take control of poorly defended Rhode Island following the British takeover of Newport. “His presence will be of infinite service,” Washington wrote, and indeed the 4,000-man Rhode Island militia was excited to hear of Arnold’s arrival. Arnold soon found they were not equipped for an attack on British forces and, with the lull of winter upon them, he went north to Boston in hopes of raising more troops. It was here in Boston that the middle-aged, widowed, weathered Arnold found himself embraced by Boston’s high society, including the remaining loyalists.

After the evacuation of Boston, some loyalist families returned to the city to look after property interests. One such family included Mrs. Gilbert DeBlois and her 16 year-old daughter, Elizabeth “Betsy” DeBlois. Arnold, who recently lost his wife, encountered the loquacious, flirtatious, and charming young Betsy through mutual acquaintances, namely, Lucy Flucker Knox, wife of General Henry Knox and daughter of Thomas Flucker, the royal secretary of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Arnold promptly fell passionately in love with Betsy and tried desperately to court the girl, but her mother had already chosen another suitor, an apothecary’s apprentice. This did not stop Arnold from pursuing her; enlisting the help of Mrs. Knox, he secretly sent gifts and love letters. Arnold even sent a ring, said to be an engagement ring.

Here at the MHS is one such letter from Arnold to young Betsy. This gushing missive, meant to sweep the young belle off her feet, is the archetypal ‘love letter’. In fact, I would suggest that those who do not enjoy romance should perhaps abstain from reading any further…*

                                                                                                                                                                                       April 8^th 1778

                Dear Madam,

                Twenty times have I taken up my pen to write to you, and as often has my trembling hand refused to obey the dictates of my heart, a heart which has often been calm, and serene amidst the clashing of Arms and all the din and horrors of War, trembles with diffidence and fear at giving offence when it attempts to address you on a subject so important to its happiness, long have I struggled in vain to errace your heavenly Image from it, neither time, absence, misfortunes, nor your cruel Indifference have been able to efface the deep impressions your Charms have made, and will you doom a heart so true, so faithful, to languish in despair; shall I expect no returns to the most sincere, ardent, and disinterested passion; Dear Betsy suffer that heavenly Bosom (which surely cannot know itself the cause of misfortune without a sympathetic pang) to expand with friendship at least; and let me know my Fate, if a happy one no Man will strive more to deserve it, if on the contrary I am doom’d to despair my latest breath will be to implore the blessing of Heaven on the Idol, [the] only wish of my soul.

                                                                                    Adieu

                                                                                                Dear Madam and believe

                                                                          me most sincerely          

                                                                                                             Your devoted

                                                                                                                         Humble Servant

                                                                                                                                  B A

 

In addition to this letter, the MHS also holds the ring that Arnold sent to young Betsy in the hope of attaining her hand. 

I had read of the romances of Benedict Arnold before, but I never realized how much passion coursed through his words (and his actions) until I saw the actual love letter. Sadly, “Heavenly Miss DeBlois” refused Arnold and his gifts.

This devastating blow to the heart was received with an equally devastating blow to his pride from Congress. At the time, Arnold was due to be promoted in the ranks. Instead, Congress promoted five Brigadier Generals to Major General, all inferior to Arnold. Many, including Washington, were outraged and assumed Arnold would certainly resign at such an insult. Perhaps this prompted Arnold to begin questioning himself and the world around him…

What a romantic Arnold must have been! It seems he was passionate in all aspects of life, but one who fell zealously and fervently in love, although, all too easily!

A year later Benedict Arnold met Peggy (Margaret) Shippen, and his heart was aflame once again. He also wrote Peggy love letters quite similar to the ones he had sent to Betsy. (Well, no point wasting good prose.)  Be still my heart, for Arnold strikes again!

…And then he turned out to be a traitor. 

An early Happy Valentine’s Day to all the romantics out there, especially those who love historical romance!

*Please note that the transcription is a rough-and-ready version, not an authoritative transcript. Researchers wishing to use the letter in the course of their own work should verify the version found here with the manuscript original.

By Susan Martin, Collection Services

It was the summer of 1850, and the Massachusetts Free Soil Party needed a standard-bearer. The party was just two years old and struggled to make headway against the two-party juggernaut of Democrats and Whigs. Free Soilers had seated only a handful of their candidates in Congress so far, but with the upcoming U.S. Senate election, they saw a chance to cement their influence on public policy.

Founded in 1848 by disillusioned anti-slavery Democrats and Whigs, the party’s primary issue was opposition to slavery in new territories acquired by the United States. Thus its slogan: “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Men.” To be a Free Soiler was not necessarily to be an abolitionist; the party platform didn’t call for an end to slavery, merely opposed its extension into new American land.

The Free Soilers’ sense of urgency was warranted. On 2 February 1848, with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War, the U.S. had annexed a massive amount of land, including Texas, California, and most of the American Southwest. The debate was raging: Would slavery be the law of the land in this new territory?

Daniel Webster

Then, on 7 March 1850, “the great Massachusetts Statesman” Daniel Webster gave a fateful speech. In his Seventh of March Speech, as it came to be known, Senator Webster argued in favor of the Compromise of 1850, including the abhorrent Fugitive Slave Law, as necessary to preserve the Union. Anti-slavery partisans in Massachusetts, where opposition to the compromise was strongest, were shocked and angry. Even more so when Webster was appointed Secretary of State by President Millard Fillmore in July.

To make matters worse, the nominee chosen by the Massachusetts Whig Party, Samuel A. Eliot, came out in support of Webster’s speech. The Whigs were the dominant party in the state, but Free Soilers could not, in good conscience, back Eliot’s candidacy. Tired of concessions to “the great Slave Power,” they met on 8 August to choose their own nominee.

Charles Sumner

They settled on Boston lawyer Charles Sumner, a staunch “anti-extensionist” and former “Conscience” (anti-slavery) Whig. The 39-year-old Sumner was an impressive orator notorious for delivering a controversial anti-war speech at Boston’s official Independence Day celebration five years earlier. He’d also recently argued against racial segregation in public schools in the landmark case of Roberts v. Boston, alongside African-American lawyer Robert Morris. And although he’d run for a Congressional seat once before and lost, Sumner was a logical choice, and Free Soilers were hopeful.

On 9 August 1850, Chairman William Bates and Secretary James W. Stone of the Massachusetts Free Soil Party wrote a letter to Sumner offering him the nomination. The letter, recently acquired by the MHS, reads in part:

You know well however the condition of our cause here. It is in its infancy. It requires all the energy of its advocates, all the perseverance of its friends and the vigilance of its defenders, in the absence of a daily press to counterbalance and expose the efforts of those who, we fear, might betray the citadel of freedom. There has never been a time when the clear manifestation of the principles we represent and maintain was more important than at present.

Sumner initially demurred. Then Congress passed the Compromise of 1850, and Sumner accepted the nomination.

He was a divisive candidate, to say the least. It took four months of repeated and contentious voting in Congress for Sumner to win the absolute majority necessary to take the seat, which he finally did in April 1851. It was the start of a long and illustrious career. Sumner would go on to serve in the Senate for almost 23 years, as a Free Soiler and then a Republican, until his death in 1874. Probably most famous as the victim of an assault by fellow Congressman Preston Brooks in 1856, Sumner is widely acknowledged as one of the most influential U.S. legislators during the Civil War and Reconstruction eras.

Sources:

Blue, Frederick J. Charles Sumner and the Conscience of the North. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1994.

Blue, Frederick J. The Free Soilers: Third Party Politics, 1848-54. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1973.

Taylor, Anne-Marie. Young Charles Sumner and the Legacy of the American Enlightenment, 1811-1851. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001.

By Wesley Fiorentino, Reader Services alumnus

New England is perhaps not the first region in which twenty-first century readers place the Ku Klux Klan.  Yet, in Not A Catholic Nation: The Ku Klux Klan Confronts New England in the 1920s, Mark Paul Richard thoroughly dispels the notion that the infamous secret society had no substantial presence in New England or the northeast.  Richard, Professor of History and Canadian Studies at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, focuses on the tensions between the KKK and Catholic immigrant populations throughout New England in the 1920s.  Of particular interest to Richard is the resistance to KKK influence by Franco-American populations in the northeast borderlands regions.  French-speaking Catholic groups in all six New England states were at the forefront of anti-Klan activity in the 1920s.

Richard closely examines the rise and fall of the 1920s Klan in New England using newspapers, state government records, and court proceedings as his source material.  Through this research Richard sheds considerable light on the sentiments both for and against the Klan during the 1920s.  Formally re-founded in 1915, the second iteration of the Ku Klux Klan spread well beyond the southern states where the original Klan had operated.  Building on a structured hierarchy, the Klan of the 1920s functioned as something like a fraternal and civic organization, espousing the need for Anglo-American Protestants to unite in the face of waves of Catholic immigrants in addition to Jews, African-Americans, and other minorities.  Espousing Nativist ideals, the Klan sought to disenfranchise entire groups of Catholic immigrants from politics and business.  While Klan-affiliated groups in New England remained in agreement with the national Klan with regards to their views on minorities including Jews and African-Americans, Catholic immigrants generally made up much larger portions of the population in New England states and were thus seen as a more immediate threat to be dealt with.  Among their biggest targets were the Franco-American populations in New England.  In the 1920s, Franco-Americans made up a huge portion of both the immigrant and the Catholic populations of New England states.  They would clash with the Klan in their newspapers, in the streets of New England cities and towns, and in the halls of state government.

Richard’s book showcases the efforts of ethnic Catholic groups to dispel the Klan’s exclusionary notions of Americanism.  Furthermore, Richard demonstrates that Franco-Americans in particular acted as their own agents in their ideological struggles with the Klan.  Although Irish-American politicians in New England such as James Michael Curley railed against the KKK, Franco-Americans resisted the influence of the KKK largely through their own efforts.  Richard examines the use of French-language newspapers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and elsewhere in exposing the contradictions and hypocrisy inherent in KKK ideology. 

In addition to earlier scholarship focusing on the struggles of Irish-American politicians against the Klan,  Richard shows that Franco-Americans were often a favorite target of Klan members and Nativist sympathizers and that they effectively discredited the Klan in New England through their own avenues including French-language newspapers and open protest.  Richard’s book is an excellent read for students of immigration issues in the early twentieth century, as well as of the struggles of Catholic populations against Nativist bigotry.  Scholars of the Franco-American experience in the northeast in the twentieth century will find Richard’s book to be an invaluable tool. 

Below are some materials relating to issues of immigration, race, religion, and civil liberties in Massachusetts from our collections:

– Ursuline Convent Trial Notes, 1834.  Call Number: Ms. N-1698.  Shaw, Lemuel, 1781-1861.  Massachusetts Historical Society.

– John E. Gilman Scrapbooks, 1885-1890.  Call Number: Scrapbooks 051.  Gilman, John E., 1844-1921.  Massachusetts Historical Society.

– Massachusetts Public Interests League records, 1919-1929.  Call Number: Ms. N-514.  Massachusetts Public Interests League.  Massachusetts Historical Society.

– American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts records, 1920-2005.  Call Number: Ms. N-2257.  American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.  Massachusetts Historical Society.