Benedict Arnold

If I was being a troll I could reverse that and quote it with Washington in the place of Arnold.

The American Revolution was basically a civil war in character, and those are always kind of messy with definitions like "traitor".

Arnold was a traitor to the American cause and the cause of liberty and sold himself out to tyranny; he has no sympathy from me.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Arnold was a traitor to the American cause and the cause of liberty and sold himself out to tyranny; he has no sympathy from me.
You want to do this?

Fine, we'll do this.


To paint the American War of Independence as liberty vs. tyranny is a simplification for a number of reasons. One of them is that there was no actual tyrant on the British side - there was bitter debate in Parliament about how to handle things, and it was about a century since that Parliament had proven it could break a king and replace him.

The very nature of the Boston Tea Party is part and parcel of that - the British tea was cheaper than the stuff certain wealthy smugglers were bringing in, and they're the ones who organized that action.

Another reason is the explanation that Arnold gave for his changing sides. He was pessimistic over the way Congress was infighting and the dissatisfaction in the army - and, of course, that he'd been repeatedly passed over for no good reason despite the claims of the new government to respect ability over connections.

And, finally... if the American cause was the cause of Liberty and Britain was Tyranny, then there is no possible explanation nor justification for things like the way slaves counted for the voting power of the states their owners lived in or how slavery remained legal.


I have no quarrel with the idea that the US cause was overall just. I do, however, object to Arnold being called a traitor undeserving of sympathy but Washington all but whitewashed.
 
You want to do this?

Fine, we'll do this.


To paint the American War of Independence as liberty vs. tyranny is a simplification for a number of reasons. One of them is that there was no actual tyrant on the British side - there was bitter debate in Parliament about how to handle things, and it was about a century since that Parliament had proven it could break a king and replace him.

The very nature of the Boston Tea Party is part and parcel of that - the British tea was cheaper than the stuff certain wealthy smugglers were bringing in, and they're the ones who organized that action.

Another reason is the explanation that Arnold gave for his changing sides. He was pessimistic over the way Congress was infighting and the dissatisfaction in the army - and, of course, that he'd been repeatedly passed over for no good reason despite the claims of the new government to respect ability over connections.

And, finally... if the American cause was the cause of Liberty and Britain was Tyranny, then there is no possible explanation nor justification for things like the way slaves counted for the voting power of the states their owners lived in or how slavery remained legal.


I have no quarrel with the idea that the US cause was overall just. I do, however, object to Arnold being called a traitor undeserving of sympathy but Washington all but whitewashed.

Speaking as a patriotic American who has worn his country's uniform let me make a couple of other points. One, in the 1770s the citizens of the 13 colonies probably enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world. Two, the taxes being levied against them were to help pay off the debt from a war that was fought in part in their defense. Plus and correct me if I am wrong but weren't the colonists paying much less in taxes than the folks in the home islands?

I love my country, I am glad we won our war for independence, and I think the US Constitution is an act of unparalleled genius produced by a group of exceptionally talented men.

That said, I have the intellectual honesty to admit that the patriots to some extent behaved like a bunch of snotty teenagers (speaking as the parent of a snotty teenager).
 
To paint the American War of Independence as liberty vs. tyranny is a simplification for a number of reasons. One of them is that there was no actual tyrant on the British side - there was bitter debate in Parliament about how to handle things, and it was about a century since that Parliament had proven it could break a king and replace him.

There does not need to be one person who is a "tyrant" for there to be a tyranny. "Taxation without representation is tyranny" is what James Otis said, I think. Virtual representation was as good as a tyrant king when the colonists had no voice in Parliament chosen by them to defend their interests.

Aside from picking that nit, you're so on the money about the entire conflict being far more complicated than "liberty vs. tyranny."

Two, the taxes being levied against them were to help pay off the debt from a war that was fought in part in their defense. Plus and correct me if I am wrong but weren't the colonists paying much less in taxes than the folks in the home islands?

The home islands did indeed enjoy higher taxes than did the colonies. They were so high in fact that they would lead to much protestation from the lower classes with time. The Sugar Act lowered the tax on molasses by half in the hopes that such a move would encourage the colonists to quit smuggling and generate a little revenue for the government. The Tea Act's monopoly similarly lead to a decrease of the price of tea and imposed no new taxes. Economic complaints about taxes had some justification, however, in that the colonies suffered from a downturn in the economy for much of the 1760s.

That said, I have the intellectual honesty to admit that the patriots to some extent behaved like a bunch of snotty teenagers (speaking as the parent of a snotty teenager).

I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. "Snotty teenagers" implies that the colonists were (at least sometimes) acting unreasonably. I'd say that, given the ideological presuppositions that the colonists brought into the 1760s and 1770s, much of what they argued and did was justifiable according to their world view. Yes, the colonists repeatedly shifted the goalposts on the matter of "internal" and "external" taxes over the course of the imperial crisis. Yes, many in the merchant class were heavily into smuggling and wanted nothing to do with paying any taxes in the first place. And yes, the colonists declared the cause of liberty while simultaneously holding several hundred thousand Africans in bondage. But the colonists had well-developed principles regarding their status in the empire and their relationships with the metropole that deserve better than such a dismissive description.
 
Can we get back to the fact that under his orders this city of New London was burned which is at the time the next City down the river from his city of Norwich CT.

If that is not a sign of a traitor I don't know what is ?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Can we get back to the fact that under his orders this city of New London was burned which is at the time the next City down the river from his city of Norwich CT.

If that is not a sign of a traitor I don't know what is ?
Here's something that would be considered a sign of a traitor.


The US Constitution, unusually, explicitly defines treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

By this definition, all the Founders were treasonous to the UK - and Benedict Arnold was treasonous to the US.
Sound fair?
 
Speaking as a patriotic American who has worn his country's uniform let me make a couple of other points. One, in the 1770s the citizens of the 13 colonies probably enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world. Two, the taxes being levied against them were to help pay off the debt from a war that was fought in part in their defense. Plus and correct me if I am wrong but weren't the colonists paying much less in taxes than the folks in the home islands?

It was, but the argument of the colonies was that Parliament had no right to tax them, them not being represented there, and that they had themselves had contributed money during the war.

Also the actual war never broke out until Britain had blockaded Boston Harbor in response to the Boston Tea Party, and restructured Massachusetts' government to take a great deal of power away from its elected legislature, by re-writing the colony's charter to make its upper house appointed by the Crown rather than by the elected lower house. This came after a general system of "reform" over the previous decade of transferring financial responsibility over various colonial officers from the control of the legislature to the control of the crown, and then taxing the colony itself to recoup the crown's new costs from doing this. Unsurprisingly, the colonial legislatures were very unhappy about this.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It was, but the argument of the colonies was that Parliament had no right to tax them, them not being represented there, and that they had themselves had contributed their fair share of money during the war.
It'd be a heck of a lot better of an argument were it not exactly what's going on in the current US island territories.
That said - yes, representation certainly should have been provided.

Incidentally, you know who started that war between the French and the British - the war which the colonies benefited so much from?

George. Washington.


That makes his position as head of the Continental Army a lot more... shady, somehow?
 
It'd be a heck of a lot better of an argument were it not exactly what's going on in the current US island territories.

You are misinformed. Not only do US island territories not pay any federal taxes, they can also vote for independence on status referendums, something states can't do.

Puerto Rico typically has Independence, Statehood, Status Quo, and some sort of looser connection to the US on its referendums, though the last referendum 3 years ago was a mess. (Independence only a got a fraction of the vote, but the question of whether "statehood" or "status quo" had won was a mess) Those islands were definitely ruled as colonies in the past, and I think the very existence of Puerto Rico as a US territory is messed up, but outside of the US government unilaterally doing something to change it, it's going to be like that for a while unless those votes finally tip over in clear favor of applying for statehood.

Incidentally, you know who started that war between the French and the British - the war which the colonies benefited so much from?

George. Washington.

I did know that, and it was not exactly George Washington's finest hour, but he was also there enforcing British claims to a disputed area claimed in its entirety by the British crown. The British and French had already warned each other's soldiers and traders out of the area at gunpoint several times in the years leading up to the war, and blood had already been shed between rival Native American tribes allied to the French with those allied to the British over the dispute.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
You are misinformed. Not only do US island territories not pay any federal taxes, they can also vote for independence on status referendums, something states can't do.

Puerto Rico typically has Independence, Statehood, Status Quo, and some sort of looser connection to the US on its referendums, though the last referendum 3 years ago was a mess. (Independence only a got a fraction of the vote, but the question of whether "statehood" or "status quo" had won was a mess) Those islands were definitely ruled as colonies in the past, and I think the very existence of Puerto Rico as a US territory is messed up, but outside of the US government unilaterally doing something to change it, it's going to be like that for a while unless those votes finally tip over in clear favor of applying for statehood.
And Guam?
I just checked - Guam last had a referendum in 1982, when they decided on Commonwealth status. They are not one yet. (The options were Commonwealth status and Statehood.)
 
I do find the use of the word 'traitor' a bit odd in cases like Arnold's, given that those he betrayed were of course traitors themselves.

I suppose that makes him a double-traitor, or possibly a traitor squared.

I'm not sure of the real descriptions, but I always hesitate to tag 'traitor' on every single person of a wide scale rebellion... 'traitor' seems more appropriate to tag onto a single person who actively betrays his side of a conflict. Thus, the colonials were rebels, Arnold was a traitor; he had chosen a side in the conflict and actively betrayed it.
 
I have no quarrel with the idea that the US cause was overall just. I do, however, object to Arnold being called a traitor undeserving of sympathy but Washington all but whitewashed.

How is Washington whitewashed?

I'm not sure of the real descriptions, but I always hesitate to tag 'traitor' on every single person of a wide scale rebellion... 'traitor' seems more appropriate to tag onto a single person who actively betrays his side of a conflict. Thus, the colonials were rebels, Arnold was a traitor; he had chosen a side in the conflict and actively betrayed it.

Pretty much how I see it.
 
Arnold was a traitor to the American cause and the cause of liberty and sold himself out to tyranny; he has no sympathy from me.

as others wrote, it was a civil war, all the people on the american side were traitors to the UK. furthermore this is another era, this before fullblown nationalism came into fashion. people were not loyal to a country but to the person they chose to follow (not unusual for someone from country A to fight for country B, and sometimes even gain highest level). and B.A wasn't the only one to switch loyalties, in BA's case you could say he switched loyalties back whom he gave them first - the UK

the whole situation with him is a lot more complicated than your blunt statement. And you can also argue that he could not commit treason, because his commanders & leaders had already betrayed him.
 
Last edited:
Top