1. GW, who was then in Philadelphia to confer with Congress’s committee of conference, apparently made this agreement with Arnold in January (see Arnold to John Jay, 18 March, in n.4 to this document).

2. An opportunity arose for Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council President Joseph Reed and the council members to attack Arnold, whom they disliked almost from the start of his tenure as military commander at Philadelphia, after Arnold allegedly employed wagons in Continental service to transport private property in September and October 1778. Arnold’s unwillingness to cooperate with the council’s investigation of these allegations prompted Reed to write a letter to John Jay, president of Congress, on 25 Jan. 1779, that reads: “THIS Board, which, by its duty and station, is bound to protect the rights and interests of the good people of this State, having received a complaint from Mr. Andrew Boyd, in behalf of himself and others, that the public waggons of this State, when called forth under the Waggon Law, have been employed in the transportation of private property, required of John Mitchell, Esq; Deputy Quarter Master General, the reasons of such conduct. Mr. Mitchell, admitting the fact, alledged in justification, that the waggons had been so employed by the direction of General Arnold, then the military Commanding Officer of this State. This Board having thereupon transmitted to General Arnold a copy of their proceedings, with Mr. Mitchell’s answer, and requested General Arnold to give us a state of the transaction, he this day returned for answer, ‘That he was at all times ready to answer for his public conduct to Congress or General Washington, to whom alone he was accountable.’

“The indignity offered us upon this occasion, as well as a due regard to the violated rights of the freemen of this State, calls upon us to resent such treatment, and in their names we shall call upon the Delegates of the United States for justice, and reparation of our authority, thus wounded by one of their officers. But as we learn that General Arnold is about to depart this city for some time, and may thereby elude enquiry into this transaction, as well as some others under our consideration, we request he may be detained until the whole proceedings can be laid before you in form, and that he forbear exercising any farther command in this city until the charges against him are examined” (Case of Major General Arnold description begins Proceedings of the Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania in the Case of Major General Arnold. [Philadelphia], 1779. description ends , 3; see also N. B. David’s statement, 28 Nov. 1778; John Mitchell to Reed, 19 Jan. 1779; and Arnold to Reed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, 25 Jan. 1779, all in Case of Major General Arnold description begins Proceedings of the Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania in the Case of Major General Arnold. [Philadelphia], 1779. description ends , 2–3).

After reading Reed’s letter on 26 Jan., Congress appointed a five-member committee to investigate Arnold’s actions (see JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 13:115). Before this committee could proceed in any meaningful fashion, the Pennsylvania council compiled additional grievances against Arnold in resolutions adopted on 3 Feb. that subsequently were published in newspapers and a handbill, a facsimile of which can be found in Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends , 12:27, or Evans, American Bibliography description begins Charles Evans et al. American Bibliography and Supplement. 16 vols. Chicago, Worcester, Mass., and Charlottesville, Va., 1903–71. description ends (see Pa. Colonial Records, 11:683–84, 690, 692; see also Daniel Roberdeau to Timothy Matlack, 6 Feb., in Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends , 12:26; GW to Reed, 9 Feb., and n.1 to that document; and George Bryan to William Paca, 10 Feb., in Case of Major General Arnold description begins Proceedings of the Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania in the Case of Major General Arnold. [Philadelphia], 1779. description ends , 6–7).

After considering letters of 8 and 12 Feb. from Arnold on 15 and 16 Feb., Congress referred them to the same five-member committee appointed to investigate the initial charge against the general (see JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 13:184, 188–89). For the progress of the congressional investigation, see William Paca to Reed, 3 March, to George Bryan, 4 March, and to the Pennsylvania council, 9 March, in Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends , 12:143–44, 152–53, 178–80.

3. Arnold is referring to a report that the special committee presented to Congress on 17 March (see JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 13:324–26; see also Arnold to GW, c.18 April, DLC:GW).

4. Arnold discussed his resignation in a letter to Jay of 18 March that reads: “Finding a Relaxation from Business necessary to the Recovery of my Health and Wounds, and for a Settlement of my Public as well as private Affairs, the Latter of which have been intirely neglected for near Four Years. I applied to his Excellency General Washington in January last for Leave to resign my Command in this City, and retire from the Army until my Wounds were so far recovered as to permit my taking a Command in the Line—His Excellency was pleased to grant my Request; but as the President and Council of this State preferred a Number of Charges against me to Congress with an evident Intention to procure my disgraceful Suspension, or Dismission, I esteemed it a Duty I owed myself to hold my Command until removed by Congress, or their Charges were cleared up—As no Evidence has been produced against me, I make no Doubt the Report of the Committee will exculpate me from the Charges to the intire Satisfaction of the Honorable Congress. I have therefore, in Consequence of his Excellency’s Permission, resigned my Command to Brigadier General Hogan. As soon as my Wounds permit, I shall be happy to take a Command in the Army, and at all Times of rendering my Country every Service in my Power” (DNA:PCC, item 162).

5. Arnold’s hope that the controversy soon would end proved entirely misplaced, but a similar sentiment had animated his letter of 17 March to Jay, which reads: “I am gratefully sensible of the attention, which Congress paid to my request, in appointing a Committe of their honorable Body to Inquire into the Charges published against me by the President and Council of Pensilvania, and having been Inform’d that the Committe have finished their Inquiry and delivered their Report, I pray you Sir to recommend to Congress, to Examine, and decide thereon as soon as posible. I am sensible of the Multiplicity of Buisness before Congress, yet I flatter myself, that they will Consider the Cruel Situation In which I am placed by the Persecutions of my Enemies, and relieve me by a speedy Decision” (DNA:PCC, item 162; see also Arnold to Jay, 27 March, DNA:PCC, item 162).