Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor
A Racist Film?
John Q. Pridger
American public schools no long teach American history in a meaningful way. The sad fact is that America's youth, if it is to learn anything about history at all, depends largely on television and movies. But the Hollywood studios have an agenda which short-changes truth, and the docudramas they churn out often leave a grossly distorted view of history.
The recently aired movie, "Benedict Arnold: A Question of
Honor," staring Aidan Quinn as Arnold, is a typically warped Hollywood
depiction of American "History." The idea that a
man who betrayed both his nation and friends is a man of honor is perhaps
typical of today's culture of situational ethics. Betraying his nation must have
seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
Critic Jason Zinoman had these things to say about the movie:
"Benedict Arnold: A Man of Honor, a dramatically plodding and historically shoddy A&E melodrama starring Aidan Quinn as Arnold and Kelsey Grammer as a chubby, red-faced George Washington... Instead of concentrating on his battlefield exploits, the movie defends Arnold by shifting the blame onto his wife. Wouldn't you know it? A woman put him up to it... A Man of Honor is about as faithful to history as Arnold was to the Revolution."
Zinoman was quite right, of course, but he failed to mention the most significant and glaring historical error of all. The movie obviously had a none too subtle agenda.
I noticed that Arnold's loyal aid-de-camp, David Salisbury Franks, wore a large Star of David pendent right up front, on a necklace chain on the outside of his tunic for all to see. I figured it would be very unlikely that a Jew would advertise his religious affiliation in the manner shown. Obviously the producer wanted the audience to be very aware that Franks was Jewish. I wondered why, since he was shown as a loyal servant of Americas most notorious traitor. Could it be that he is going to turn out to be the real hero in the end?
The purpose became obvious in one of the final scenes, after Arnold had successfully made his getaway. Mrs. Arnold (depicted as the real snake in the grass), was courteously treated by General Washington. But Washington was not so lenient with the Arnolds' Jewish associate. No, indeed! That black-hearted, cruel, George Washington (Father of the Country), had Franks summarily hanged from a tree in Arnold's front yard — without so much as a question being asked. There was no trial, just a lynching, like white men later often did to recalcitrant (but usually innocent Africans). Franks was made into a Jewish martyr right there on the big screen.
Ah, ha! It became obvious! It was to show how anti-Semitic General Washington and the American revolutionaries were! It was enough to get a person's blood boiling, and change one's fondly held impressions of Washington's character. It had never before really occurred to me that there had been a lot of Jewish persecution in Revolutionary era America. But this movie made it clear that history must have covered such things up. Hanging Franks was quite a deplorable action indeed — if it really happened that way. I couldn't help but wonder, however. So I checked to make sure.
It didn't really happen the way the movie has it at all. Not even close! He lived almost another twenty years, and died of Yellow fever in 1793. The following excerpts are from an article entitled, "Vindication of an American Jewish Patriot," found on the American Jewish Historical Society's web site:
When Arnold’s treason became known, Franks fell under suspicion of complicity. To make matters worse, David Salisbury Franks was probably confused with his uncle, David Franks of New York City, who remained a notorious Tory. The court martial dropped all charges against David Salisbury Franks on the ground that they were unfounded. Remarkably, Benedict Arnold himself wrote a letter from a British ship exonerating Franks...
After Franks was returned to active duty, General George Washington had him assigned to his command. However, the other officers of Franks’ own regiment started a whispering campaign against him. Seeking to clear his name definitively, Franks asked General Washington to initiate another court-martial, one that would investigate—rather than simply drop—the scurrilous charges against him.
After a month-long investigation, the court issued a thorough report completely exonerating Franks. A promotion in rank immediately followed. Franks was entrusted by the State Department to carry highly secret documents to diplomats Benjamin Franklin in Paris and John Jay in Madrid. In 1783, Franks returned to Philadelphia, but soon left for Paris to deliver to Franklin the official copy of the peace treaty that ended the war and granted American independence. According to his accounts, Franks often paid more of his expenses than his beloved young nation could afford to reimburse.
At war’s end, Franks was made American vice-consul at Marseilles. In 1786, he was appointed to the American diplomatic team that negotiated a trade treaty between the United States and the potentates of Morocco. Yet, political opponents pursued David S. Franks. To a degree not comprehensible today, politics in the 1780s was a "blood sport" in which it was commonplace to attack opponents with accusation of vile moral corruption. Despite his exoneration, Jeffersonian Republicans continued to attack Franks for his association with Benedict Arnold. In 1786, the attacks succeeded and Franks was dismissed from the diplomatic corps. He returned to the United States discredited and bankrupt.
Undaunted, Franks fought to restore his reputation. Several times, he petitioned President Washington for reappointment to the diplomatic service. Finally, in 1789, Congress granted Franks 400 acres of land in recognition of his service during the Revolutionary war. His last position was that of assistant cashier at the Bank of the United States in Philadelphia.
David Salisbury Franks died of yellow fever in October of 1793 at the age of 53. His fortune gone, a Christian neighbor rescued his corpse from the coroner’s wagon before it went to potter’s field. Franks today lies buried today in Philadelphia’s Christ Church Burial Yard, saved from the pauper’s fate but not among his fellow Jews.
So Washington might not have been such a bigoted, cruel, and cold-hearted beast after all. In fact, he showed Franks every consideration possible.
The movie obviously seeks to leave viewers with a totally different impression. Now why would this be? Who gains thereby? What is the purpose of this historical revisionism? Don't the Jews of this nation already have enough sympathy as victims of the Holocaust? Is it really necessary for Hollywood scriptwriters and movie producers to distort or completely rewrite history at every turn in an attempt to garner more sympathy for no longer persecuted Jews? Don't we American Gentiles share enough guilt without Hollywood going the extra mile to paint us as the sons and daughters of a long line of bigoted antecedents? Are we to be rendered even more self-loathing than we already are?
This, of course, is a very graphic illustration of blatant revisionism by those who yell the loudest about historical revisionism. It makes one wonder just how much history is rewritten in Hollywood before committing it to the big screen in supposedly historically accurate "docudramas." It makes one wonder about such box office hits as Shindlers List. Was the German made into a collective beast by actual historical events, or was it done by Hollywood producers and screen writers?
The crime in such historical revisionism by Hollywood producers is in the fact that most of what American youth (and Americans in general), learn of our history (and history in general), is learned from such historical travesties as "Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor." American students aren't taught history in public schools any more. Likewise, Hollywood went out of its way to insure that the nation's movie and TV viewers are well aware of the Thomas Jefferson—Sally Hemming affair. That it is still an unproven allegation (despite, DNA tests), the story was presented as irrefutable truth. And whether the allegations are true or not, they certainly shouldn't be the focus of our attention at this late date.