Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we were not taught was his pre-treason, heroic aspect. One thing to remember was that the U.S. was not a country, but an idea, or in the views of the royalists, a renegade, wannabe republic until 1781.
I happen to believe that the raw deal Benedict Arnold was constantly given by the Continental Congress, and Generals Gates and Washington pushed him over the edge into deserting the American cause. This book puts his turn from glorious heroism into the context of its time. The American revolutionaries were a ragtag group of rebels. The one thing that what became the United States was not was a country. What Benedict Arnold betrayed was a rebel movement. History being written by the victors, the U.S. is treated by many as a country as of July 4, 1776, not 1787 when the Constitution was written, or when George Washington took the oath of office in New York City on April 30, 1789.
Benedict Arnold was an undoubted hero from 1774 when he took up arms for the Revolution for a bit more than four years, when the betrayal started. The betrayal came to a head in September or October 1780 when he attempted to turn over West Point to John Andre, a British officer. During the "heroic" period he was grievously wounded not once but twice. He spearheaded an invasion of Quebec City from Maine that nearly took what is now Canada for the revolutionaries.
He and Ethan Allen are rivals for credit for seizing Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 and then helping win the crucial Battle of Saratoga in 1777. That battle, in turn, led directly to French and Dutch recognition and military and financial support for the Revolution. In short it is possible that "no Benedict Arnold, no United States." This is rarely remembered. In no way is Benedict Arnold another Vidkund Quisling, Pierre Laval or Julius or Ethel Rosenberg.
The "thanks" he got from the Continental Congress and corrupt military leaders was to go unpaid, un-thanked and passed over for credit and promotion. He advanced considerable resources to pay soldiers and for military supplies. In his mind, at some point, "enough is enough." Part of the factor seems also have been a steamy affair leading to his second marriage, to Peggy Shippen. Peggy was part of a well-known and wealthy Loyalist Family.
None of this, in my mind, excuses treason. But some leaders should know that when "no good deed goes unpunished" the results are often not good.
Not surprisingly, the British gratitude for Benedict Arnold's turn against the Revolution was fleeting. They did not honor their promises to Benedict. The main moral of the story, I suppose, is that loyalty is a fundamental value, abandoned at peril.
He and Ethan Allen are rivals for credit for seizing Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 and then helping win the crucial Battle of Saratoga in 1777. That battle, in turn, led directly to French and Dutch recognition and military and financial support for the Revolution. In short it is possible that "no Benedict Arnold, no United States." This is rarely remembered. In no way is Benedict Arnold another Vidkund Quisling, Pierre Laval or Julius or Ethel Rosenberg.
John Wayne Gacy - serial killer, workaholic entrepreneur, or both?
I don't see the issue here.
Once upon a time, I had the casual acquaintance of a man. We were colleagues and had socialized on several occasions. He was generous and thoughtful. I would subsquently find out that decades earlier he had been in the USN with a certain security clearance. Having made copies of classified materials, he removed them from his base with the intent of contacting Soviet officials in a third country and selling them. He was arrested by naval intelligence before he could make contact - which, I presume, explains why he was no longer incarcerated when I knew him. What was his motivation? Apparently they were financial. It doesn't really matter. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Life isn't a zero-sum game. You can't commit terrible acts, then earn points back by doing good things; you don't earn chits that you can 'spend' with a little treason here and there, and then be the equal of someone who has never been either hero or traitor. So subsequent to having the prior actions of [let's call him 'W'] explained to me, the only further contact I ever had with him (15 years ago now) was one brief phone conversation.
Did Benedict Arnold make invaluable contributions to the cause of independence? Absolutely. This isn't really news. It speaks to the level of the betrayal. Had he been other than a celebrated figure* already, the social impact of what he attempted would have been less. I recall learning this in school.
[*Fun fact: In 1829, a certain Benedict Arnold assumed his seat in Congress, representing NY-16. He was named, of course, after the revolutionary war hero (and apparently just before his namesake's betrayal was publicly disseminated, judging by his borthdate). This must speak to Arnold's pre-perfidy fame.]
Arnold's contributions to the nascent nation are also reflected in various conflicted tributes to him, those which honor what he did but pointedly decline to honor the man. These include the so-called boot monument at Saratoga, and the conspicuously nameless plaque at West Point.
I don't really get the relevance of the highlighted portion of your post. Is it true? Certainly. So? It's a fair assumption that John Wilkes Booth's firing of a bullet into Abraham Lincoln's brain was the preverbial butterly flapping its wings in China, without which subsequent history would be so radically different to the point that you and I (and probably everyone else) would not exist. I hardly think this mitigates what Wilkes did. It's the same with Arnold.
As for motivation, while it wouldn't change my overall view that Arnold's betrayal rendered his prior acts irrelevant as to his character and proper legacy, I'd have slightly less contempt for him had his motivation been selfless. For example, had he been a confirmed loyalist ("I'll give you West Point, but I want this and that and £10,000!" hardly screams "I'm doing this for King George and the Realm!"). Back to my former acquaintance, W. Let's imagine he was some sort of confirmed communist who believed in the worker's utopia to be had if only Marxism could be enacted and allowed to advance until the state withered away. That would, in my opinion, make him a misguided fool. But at least he'd be a misguided fool who wanted something he imagined, however wrongly, that would be better for others. But, no - he just wanted cash, personal enrichment. And Arnold? His feeling were hurt and he wanted retribution against those who hadn't properly stroked his ego. Oh, and a pile of money. Like W, he was willing to sell out his fellow compatriots in arms and his nation for personal profit. Not that the difference would be great; suffice it to say I merely have a modicum less of antipathy for erroneous fools than I do for the self-absorbed and the greedy. Hell, as vile and repugnant as Booth was, at least he had a cause beyond himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
The American revolutionaries were a ragtag group of rebels. The one thing that what became the United States was not was a country. What Benedict Arnold betrayed was a rebel movement. History being written by the victors, the U.S. is treated by many as a country as of July 4, 1776, not 1787 when the Constitution was written, or when George Washington took the oath of office in New York City on April 30, 1789.
Frankly, I find this whole bit contrived and silly.
The colonies were indeed a country, a land. A sovereign state? No. Controlled by the United Kingdom? Surely. But most certainly a distinct place apart from it. Denied representation in parliament. Subject to governors appointed by a far-away monarch. A mercantile entity which existed to have its resources extracted to the benefit of the royal treasury. So the rebelious colonialists were disloyal to that king across the water, but not to their lands - Arnold, for example, was a New Yorker. Had New York been politically treated as, say, Somerset or Lincolnshire, then the 'rebel' label would be more apt. But it wasn't. It was more akin to Wales in 1200. Was Llewelyn the Great then a traitor to the crown? Nominally, yes, but he was a Welsh patriot. And Arnold was a New York patriot, Adams a Massachusetts patriot, Washington a Virginia patriot, and so forth.
Contested secessions rarely have a defined date, and there is a blur between the the reality before de facto independence, and then in the interim before de jure recognotion comes. But the United States was operating as a collective entity since 1774 (minus Georgia, which took another year to throw its lot in). Though the Continental Congresses were weak, they were national governments. So too was Confederation Congress (from 1781). The first French diplomatic representative to the United States (collectively; not to any of the states individually) took up his post in 1778. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was signed between the United Kingdom and the United States, the former granting official recognition to the latter. Between France and the UK, six other sovereign states had recognized the United States; these powers included the five most powerful empires in the world at the time. So it's abundantly clear that the United States existed, both practically and legally, years before either 1787 or 1789. By the way, the United States Constitution went into effect on March 9, 1789, (as ordered by the Confederation Congress) more than eight weeks before Washington took the oath of office. The House and Senate both convened in the first week of April.
Arnold led the British troops responsible for a wave of destruction in VA in 1781. Richmond was burned twice, by Arnold in 1781 and again in 1865. He's not real popular in VA. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...olutionary-war
As to whether Arnold committed treason, in VA, he would have been brought before a courts martial had he been caught - unlike British and Hessians who were sent to prisoner camps. Virginia had a treason law, as did other states. VA's Declaration of Rights in 1776 required a trial, but in 1777, that was discarded and replaced by a courts martial. (LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MAY 1777−−1st OF COMMONWEALTH. CHAP. VII. An act for providing against Invasions and Insurrections.) VA still has a treason statute: § 18.2-481.
Arnold's could have been charged with many crimes: treason, desertion, mutiny.
VA did not have a loyalist government, only the government in Richmond; the last colonial governor of VA, Lord Dunmore, fled in 1776. Thus, while VA could be said to be governed by "rebels" there was no alternative and really no plan in place to restore Crown rule.
But treason back then was a funny thing. Arron Burr's attorney, John Wickham, was sentenced to death in NY for treason, and hence became a successful lawyer in VA. His house is now a museum: https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/histori...ters/127-0020/
If I remember correctly, Arnold was a self-made victim of various imagined affronts and slights that bruised his ego and ambitions. That finally made him a turncoat but his future with the British wasn’t very wonderful either. He deserved his reputation.
If I remember correctly, Arnold was a self-made victim of various imagined affronts and slights that bruised his ego and ambitions. That finally made him a turncoat but his future with the British wasn’t very wonderful either. He deserved his reputation.
Until just before the betrayal he was a fantastic general. He was wounded, and given an unrequited job as Pennsylvania's military government. Eventually he "had enough."
Until just before the betrayal he was a fantastic general. He was wounded, and given an unrequited job as Pennsylvania's military government. Eventually he "had enough."
I think it's fairly obvious that his betrayal nullified any actions he took for the revolutionary cause. Given the time that has passed, the complexities of people's motivations and so forth, I do not necessarily want to pass judgment. But it seems fairly self-evident that we cannot credit him with actions he took in support of a cause which he then betrayed and tried to defeat.
I happen to believe that the raw deal Benedict Arnold was constantly given by the Continental Congress, and Generals Gates and Washington pushed him over the edge into deserting the American cause.
Just because he had his personal reasons for doing so doesn't make it not treason and therefore doesn't make him not a traitor.
Quote:
What Benedict Arnold betrayed was a rebel movement.
Doesn't matter. He still betrayed them, hence he's a traitor. You keep bringing up all these details that don't change the definition of what a traitor is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
