Benedict Arnold doesn't change sides

Benedict Arnold is equated with treason in the United States although a plaque in Central London bears the epitaph descriping him as an "American Patriot" . Not a term the American's would have used and having taken part in the revolutionary war initially he was hardly a British patriot either. He could hardly be called a Tory as at least people knew where the Tories stood and his change of allegiance was for personal reasons not for ideological ones i.e self interest and probably pique at others getting preferred advancement. A pure opportunist. It has been alldged that Benjamin Franklin was a double agent but he was more likely playing both sides from a perspective of reluctant support for succession and the interests of his state if the rumours are true.

However suppose Arnold didn't change sides and had gone on to be a military hero. What would cause this? France staying out of the war which would have probably resulted in a victory for the crown? Arnold getting promotion and avoiding dubious financial deals? Arnold just being patient and let events take their course i.e his skills would be needed and he could have returned to a prominent position but maybe his ego was too big? Maybe he even had King makers delusions but like the Earl of Warwick in the Wars of the Roses their influence isn't as great as they think and their changing sides didn't affect the outcome

Oer what if Arnold was a Tory from the start. No Boston Massacre? Had Arnold not been a patriot in the early stages of the war it is concievable the rebellion would have been over i.e no victories at Tociconderoga, Lake Champlain and Saratoga.
 

Keenir

Banned
and his change of allegiance was for personal reasons not for ideological ones i.e self interest and probably pique at others getting preferred advancement. A pure opportunist. It has been alldged that Benjamin Franklin was a double agent but he was more likely playing both sides

...which isn't disloyal at all, oh no. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

However suppose Arnold didn't change sides and had gone on to be a military hero.

he already was one. but, and even George Washington recognized this, Congress was starving Washington, Arnold (both for credit and literally starving the armies)
 
Benedict Arnold is equated with treason in the United States although a plaque in Central London bears the epitaph descriping him as an "American Patriot" . Not a term the American's would have used and having taken part in the revolutionary war initially he was hardly a British patriot either. He could hardly be called a Tory as at least people knew where the Tories stood and his change of allegiance was for personal reasons not for ideological ones i.e self interest and probably pique at others getting preferred advancement. A pure opportunist. It has been alldged that Benjamin Franklin was a double agent but he was more likely playing both sides from a perspective of reluctant support for succession and the interests of his state if the rumours are true.

However suppose Arnold didn't change sides and had gone on to be a military hero. What would cause this? France staying out of the war which would have probably resulted in a victory for the crown? Arnold getting promotion and avoiding dubious financial deals? Arnold just being patient and let events take their course i.e his skills would be needed and he could have returned to a prominent position but maybe his ego was too big? Maybe he even had King makers delusions but like the Earl of Warwick in the Wars of the Roses their influence isn't as great as they think and their changing sides didn't affect the outcome

Oer what if Arnold was a Tory from the start. No Boston Massacre? Had Arnold not been a patriot in the early stages of the war it is concievable the rebellion would have been over i.e no victories at Tociconderoga, Lake Champlain and Saratoga.

One easy way to help out Arnold is to allow General Gates to take a bullet on or before the Battle of Saratoga. Arnold goes on to win the battle (and maybe avoid that broken leg) and doesn't have Gates spreading false reports that downplayed Arnold's role while inflating his own. Perhaps as a result, he gets assigned to directly to Washington's staff and avoids being stationed in Philadelphia for recuperation, thus not meeting that Tory girl (whose name escapes me at the moment) and isn't swayed by hormones.
Yes, Gates is the key.
 
I always thought it would be great if Arnold became a doiuble-agent and used his dissatisfaction with the Congress to con the British into making a disasterous assault on West Point.
 
I always thought it would be great if Arnold became a doiuble-agent and used his dissatisfaction with the Congress to con the British into making a disasterous assault on West Point.
We just got back from West Point on a trip with the Boy Scouts.

The Captain who gave us the tour said that if attacked, West Point would most likely have been taken, for starters, the Great Chain would not have worked in the slightest.

INteresting Question.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Arnold stays loya (or has the good grace to get killed in battle against the British)l, and there is a STATE named after him somewhere in the lower 48, and every city in America has a Benedict Arnold Ave. The only bigger hero than Arnold in the Colonies before he went over was Washington himself.

Having Arnold turn his coat was like Bradley or Halsey doing so in WW II or Sherman do it in 1865.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Arnold would be revered as a hero of the revolution and likely have a state named after him as said.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Simple, really. Gates eats a bullet at Saratoga.

Alternatively, Arnold somehow manages to take Canada earlier.

Either of these things means that he gets the credit he deserves, and has no reason to go over to the Brits.
 
he already was one. but, and even George Washington recognized this, Congress was starving Washington, Arnold (both for credit and literally starving the armies)

So an earlier french entry in the war would keep Arnold on the rebels side?
 
Personally, I'd argue that Arnold didn't really change "sides"; his side, even when he took commands from British officers, was to the American colonies. Just because he changed armies doesn't necessarily mean he did not have the best interests of the American people at heart. In fact, his memoirs and statements indicate that he did so because he felt the Continental Congress was carrying on an unjust war after their key grievances had been addressed and redressed, and that any effort to end the war quickly would save more Colonial lives than it would end.

Nitpick on the wording, I know. But, whatev. :D
 
Personally, I'd argue that Arnold didn't really change "sides"; his side, even when he took commands from British officers, was to the American colonies. Just because he changed armies doesn't necessarily mean he did not have the best interests of the American people at heart. In fact, his memoirs and statements indicate that he did so because he felt the Continental Congress was carrying on an unjust war after their key grievances had been addressed and redressed, and that any effort to end the war quickly would save more Colonial lives than it would end.

Nitpick on the wording, I know. But, whatev. :D

I think that response is a classic case of I'm not in error the people are. His reasons for changing sides appear to be pique at failure in promotion personal rather than ideological ones. His complaint is not that the war was wrong but that he wasn't leading the American army. Had he been a Tory from the outset then he wouldn't have taken up arms.
 
Top