Revolutionary Military and Naval Heroes

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 February 2013 00:00
 

Just occurred to me that the warrant of Charles II might be relevant the next time we resurrect and again beat to death the long-suffering horse of whether or not clans and chiefs enjoy (or enjoyed) formal recognition by the Crown…

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
17 February 2013 00:43
 

Joseph McMillan;97595 wrote:

See what you think.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Notable.Revolution


Ha ha! Excellent!

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
17 February 2013 04:10
 

Joseph McMillan;97604 wrote:

When Cornwallis supposedly asked that Yankee Doodle not be played at the surrender at Yorktown, the Americans obliged.

Instead they played "The World Turned Upside Down."

As I understand it, the British band, expecting to return, played the tune "When the King Enjoys His Own Again", but this was unfortunately also the tune used for the song "The World Turned Upside Down". Still, it makes a good story.

[Edited to include the caveats in http://www.colonialmusic.org/Resource/Schrader.htm]

As for the Arnold entry lacking a name and only a description, I found that quite an appropriate reference to his battlefield memorial. Well thought out.

 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
17 February 2013 06:37
 

Derek Howard;97619 wrote:

As for the Arnold entry lacking a name and only a description, I found that quite an appropriate reference to his battlefield memorial. Well thought out.


Certainly there is precedent for such treatment, but I’d submit that a battlefield memorial is different than an armorial.  The former - an honor, typically - might be amended from its usual form, or subsequently altered when dishonor attaches itself to the individual, without changing the underlying historical facts.

 

An armorial, however, is a catalog of explicitly identifying devices. Arnold didn’t gain his arms through loyalty nor lose them by disloyalty. He bore them as he bore his name.  It seems to muddy the purpose of the armorial as historical record to record his entry this way.

 

From my side of the border, I’ve been trying to recall if there’s a Canadian historical analogy to Arnold’s case, and none presently comes to mind. Perhaps, then, we just don’t get how you guys feel about Arnold.  Heck, we hanged Louis Riel for treason, and now he’s widely regarded as a Father of Confederation. In Manitoba, tomorrow is Louis Riel Day, a provincial holiday.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 February 2013 08:44
 

Benjamin Thornton;97612 wrote:

Joe, I confess I can’t decide whether your treatment of Arnold’s arms is in earnest. Far be it for me to tell Americans how to deal with their traitors, but the inversion of his arms and exclusion of his name comes across (to me, anyway) as mildly petulant.

It mars an otherwise straightforward and useful survey of American historical armorial usage, and rather jars one’s eye when scrolling the list, causing the reader to pause and deduce the identity of the bearer - perhaps even giving more thought to Arnold than you think him worth. Surely a disclaimer or an asterisk and note would have sufficed to explain his inclusion in the list?

 

Then again, perhaps I’ve completely misinterpreted your intention, or worse, missed a joke.


No, not a joke at all.

 

If we do a roll of arms of the military leaders of the American Revolution, it implies to me that we are honoring them in some fashion.  At a minimum, we would only include those who rendered honorable service.

 

If it’s a question of recording with all the relevant detail the arms borne by someone as a historical matter of fact, then I would point out that Arnold already appears in our Roll of Early American Arms with a citation of the source and a note giving the genealogical connection to his ancestors who bore different albeit related arms.

 

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Roll.A

 

The relevant extract:


Quote:

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Roll/arnold.gif

‘1. Arnold, Thomas (of Watertown, Mass, 1635)

2. Arnold, Benedict (d. Providence, 1727), Tombstone, Newport, R.I.

3. Arnold, Oliver (d. Providence, 1770), Tombstone, Old North Churchyard, Providence.

Same arms as Arnold of Polebrook, Northants.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/Roll/arnold4.gif

Arnold, Maj Gen Benedict (Norwich, Conn, 1741-London, 1801).  The traitor; the arms are impaled on the bookplate of his son-in-law, Col Pownall Phipps.  Bolton blazons the bar nebuly "of the second," which would be Or.  He was the grandson of the Benedict Arnold, d. 1727, #2, in the entry above.


His name having been raised in the context of the specific roll of revolutionary leaders and heroes, however, I felt that he should either be shown in the manner traditional for the arms of traitors, with his name dealt with as it is at Saratoga, or else not at all.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 February 2013 08:56
 

Benjamin Thornton;97620 wrote:

Arnold didn’t gain his arms through loyalty nor lose them by disloyalty.


Actually, given that they are different from the arms borne by his grandfather, he may well have gained them by disloyalty.


Quote:

From my side of the border, I’ve been trying to recall if there’s a Canadian historical analogy to Arnold’s case, and none presently comes to mind. Perhaps, then, we just don’t get how you guys feel about Arnold.


Well, calling someone a Benedict Arnold down here is pretty much the same as calling him a Quisling or a Judas. That may give you an idea.


Quote:

Heck, we hanged Louis Riel for treason, and now he’s widely regarded as a Father of Confederation. In Manitoba, tomorrow is Louis Riel Day, a provincial holiday.


The circumstances of what Riel did and what Arnold did are rather different, I’d say. For one thing, Riel didn’t bear the Queen’s commission and sell out to the other side out of personal pique and greed.

 

Footnote: I just noticed online that Arnold’s plaque among other Revolutionary generals at West Point is inscribed "Major General….born 1740" with no name. I think I’ll add that to our roll.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 February 2013 09:09
 

Joseph McMillan;97622 wrote:

No, not a joke at all.

If we do a roll of arms of the military leaders of the American Revolution, it implies to me that we are honoring them in some fashion.  At a minimum, we would only include those who rendered honorable service.

 

His name having been raised in the context of the specific roll of revolutionary leaders and heroes, however, I felt that he should either be shown in the manner traditional for the arms of traitors, with his name dealt with as it is at Saratoga, or else not at all.


I just hope that you don’t decide to do an armorial for the Civil War! wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 February 2013 10:11
 

David Pope;97624 wrote:

I just hope that you don’t decide to do an armorial for the Civil War! wink


As you will appreciate, I would have no problem at all with including both sides in that one.  I’m not sure there’d be enough content to make it worthwhile, though.

 

But I do think it may be worthwhile to revise the whole thing into two separate rolls:

 

1.  U.S. military and naval heroes and leaders, regardless of time frame

2.  Foreigners who fought in support of American Independence

 

Then Benedict Arnold is just relegated to the overall roll of early American arms.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 February 2013 10:36
 

I’ve just split the military/naval roll in two.

Foreign Contributors to American Independence

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Notable.Revolution

 

Military and Naval Leaders and Heroes

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Notable.Military

 
Derek Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Derek Howard
Total Posts:  116
Joined  08-05-2009
 
 
 
18 February 2013 08:26
 

Joseph McMillan;97626 wrote:

Then Benedict Arnold is just relegated to the overall roll of early American arms.

I was just refreshing my memory of an armorial case before the Parlement in Paris in 1365 in which Jean de Melun, a French knight, against Henry Pomfret, his English captor. Pomfret had exacted an obligation by Melun to pay a ransom and wanted it honoured. Melun claimed the obligation was extorted by force, that he was not taken in lawful war and that he had a papal(?) dispensation from his oath. For our purpose now however, the interest is that Pomfret reversed Melun’s arms for failing to meet his commitments and Melun claimed this was unlawful and injurious and claimed damages. The judgement was in Melun’s favour. (Keen: "The Laws of War", 1965, pp 259-263). Under the Law of Arms you cannot just unilaterally reverse someone’s arms!

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 February 2013 09:19
 

Derek Howard;97633 wrote:

I was just refreshing my memory of an armorial case before the Parlement in Paris in 1365 in which Jean de Melun, a French knight, against Henry Pomfret, his English captor. Pomfret had exacted an obligation by Melun to pay a ransom and wanted it honoured. Melun claimed the obligation was extorted by force, that he was not taken in lawful war and that he had a papal(?) dispensation from his oath. For our purpose now however, the interest is that Pomfret reversed Melun’s arms for failing to meet his commitments and Melun claimed this was unlawful and injurious and claimed damages. The judgement was in Melun’s favour. (Keen: "The Laws of War", 1965, pp 259-263). Under the Law of Arms you cannot just unilaterally reverse someone’s arms!


Very interesting.  Well, if Benedict Arnold can track me down and find a court willing to take jurisdiction, then sue and be damned!

 

In any case, the rearrangement of the rolls has relegated him to the general roll of early American arms, where they are right side up.

 
Kenneth Mansfield
 
Avatar
 
 
Kenneth Mansfield
Total Posts:  2518
Joined  04-06-2007
 
 
 
18 February 2013 10:25
 

Joseph McMillan;97627 wrote:

I’ve just split the military/naval roll in two.

Foreign Contributors to American Independence

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Notable.Revolution

 

Military and Naval Leaders and Heroes

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=Notable.Military


Which of course allows for the excellent arms of Gen. Powell. Good idea.

 
 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
18 February 2013 14:35
 

Let me put aside my rabble-rousing to offer Joseph congratulations on these rolls. They’re marvellous accomplishments and do credit to the Society.

 
arriano
 
Avatar
 
 
arriano
Total Posts:  1303
Joined  20-08-2004
 
 
 
18 February 2013 14:40
 

Kenneth Mansfield;97635 wrote:

Which of course allows for the excellent arms of Gen. Powell. Good idea.


I started making a list of generals and admirals who were armigerous, but now I can’t find it. I know Doug McArthur was on it.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
18 February 2013 22:51
 

In a roll of arms, wouldn’t the historical precedent have been a large black X over the emblazonment?  I’ve seen an example of that approach recently—I’ll look for it.