Understanding Arnold

that in my opinion does nothing to mitigate Arnold's betrayal and treason.

Let's not forget that not only did he conspire to surrender West Point, he also went on to soldier AGAINST the very Revolution he had fought for, as a British officer.

And it's not like he didn't have alternatives to treason. He could have simply resigned his commission.

There were many personal squabbles at the time that were very intense, but didn't lead to treason. Burr killed Hamilton in a duel. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other, and disagreed vehemently on the shape the country should take.

This is an interesting historical footnote, but not much else.

Very interesting and well-written, though.

I think that it does offer some small mitigation, but it does not let him off the hook for his actions. But I think that to truly judge Arnold fairly, everything going on around him at that time has to be taken into account. And it strikes me that he was in many ways betrayed by his countrymen and his commander.

The Continental Congress, which was no great fan of Arnold knew that the charges being leveled against him were specious and could not find against him in their hearings. The moment that Washington allowed Arnold to be put through a court martial for using a government wagon for his personal use, the final straw was placed on Arnold in his mind.

And while you are right about Burr killing Hamilton, Jefferson and Hamilton's rocky relationship, and the policy arguments found in the Federalist and Ant-Federalist there was a difference from what Arnold was facing, namely that the squabbles in those cases were clearly personal and/or political. In the case of Arnold you had a politician using his influence to have a decorated officer in the Army face a court martial.

While I don't think I would have betrayed my countrymen, I can see where Arnold could feel that he had first been betrayed by Washington and others. And where do you go when your country, as embodied by Washington and the Continental Congress have branded you a criminal?

don't agree. All this story really illustrates to me is that Arnold's issue was one of vainglory, a quest for his own advancement that was frustrated by others; this is highlighted by his switching to becoming an officer fighting for the British, which is why I threw that in.

Further, the point of my mentioning Burr, Hamilton, Jefferson, etcetera was to also highlight the fact that there were MANY very serious feuds taking place at that time, but everyone else managed to carry on their feuds -- in at least one case right up to the point of death -- without resorting to treason and betrayal of the country.

There were troops who deserted at Valley Forge; I'm sure that in their minds they had "reasons" for doing so. That didn't matter to Washington, who rightly executed them. And desertion isn't even anywhere NEAR as bad as treason.

There is absolutely no justification in the world for that.

Did it occur to you that maybe the reason all these guys aligned themselves against Arnold was that they knew he was just in the war for his OWN glorification, and wasn't sincere in his fealty? Which certainly turned out to be the case.

Just another over-ambitious schmuck who was frustrated in his quest for power and glory.

As to your closing question: just about every criminal ever convicted manages to come up with SOME justification for doing their crime. They done me wrong! My parents beat me! They had no reason to fire me! I was molested as a child! Blah blah blah.

I couldn't care less. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Does it occur to you that maybe the people aligned against Arnold were a tad bit jealous of his success as a soldier? Did it occur to you that maybe some of the people aligned against Arnold were themselves in the war for their own advancement as well and saw Arnold's rise as an impediment to theirs? That argument can cut both ways, my friend.

As for Valley Forge, I doubt that general Washington had been complicit in the destruction of their honor and their good names by any of their political rivals, as was the case with Arnold. It makes a big difference when the people that you have served up to the point of being permanently maimed turn on you in order to allow someone else to achieve their political ends. As wrong as Arnold was, Joseph Reed was just as wrong to press charges against the man that he knew were not true, simply to get political power in Pennsylvania into his hands. And it was equally wrong in my opinion for George Washington to go along with the destruction of Arnold's character and career, no matter how much he needed the supplies from Pennsylvania.

And my point in writing this is not to give Arnold a pass for his crime, but to try to see all angles of a historical situation that has been taught to us as though it is a simple matter. This situation is much more complicated than Arnold simply deciding to turn his back on his comrades for money and a command in the Royal Army. I simply wanted to explore the idea that this historical situation is not black and white, but that it contains some shades of grey.

Further, it is just too easy to say "Benedict Arnold was a traitor" and never try to understand why. And the reasoning that has been taught for as long as I can remember does not encourage any intellectual curiosity, but instead demands that the popular opinon/view be accepted without further study.

Heck, we all know that treason is a terrible crime and I am not denying that. But I am saying that there is more to the story than a simple instance of treason. I want to know why, I want to get a better understanding of everything that was going on, and in doing that I have come to the conclusion that the simplistic version of events taught for decades does not come close to telling the entire story. And while I am not expecting anyone to foergive Arnold's actions, I would hope that people could read this little essay of mine and get at least a different, mpre complete view of the event that does not try to break it down into simply "good guy-bad guy" roles.

And in relation to criminals making excuses for their actions, you are right about that. But the comparison fails in that most criminals do not face extended campaings to discredit them in the press; they do not face trumped up charges that are lodged for the political empowerment of one individual; and they do not have outside forces blackmailing the judge to come to a desired guilty verdict. If they did, we would realize that the deck was stacked against them and we would rail against a system that allowed it to happen.

that as far as I'm concerned, it really is a simple matter: the man was a traitor.

I don't care about any "justifications" as there are no possible justifications at all.

He was perfectly free, once again, to retire his commission. He could have then taken up with the Loyalists if he wished. He chose not to do that. He chose to remain an officer in the Continental Army and commit treason with Andre, conspiring to turn over West Point, which would have resulted in the loss of many American lives. That cannot be justified under any circumstances.


When I was in the Army, I knew a few sergeants I simply loathed. I didn't grab my rifle and join the NVA.

that issue of choice I just wrote about.

If this truly was a "matter of honor" to Arnold, the honorable thing to do would have been to resign his commission and side with the Loyalists, or even THEN take a British commission. It wouldn't have been the first time in that war, by any means.

He CHOSE to remain in the Continental Army and become a traitor. It was a *conscious act* to do so. It was the absolutely most despicable and dishonorable decision available.

And it's the one HE chose.

Nothing else matters.

of any of today's Dim-ocrats? He'd certainly fit in with Reid, P-Lousy, Chuckie, Teddythedrunk, Murtha, Feinstein, etc.

As for the running discussion....if it weren't for the actions of the Congress and Reed, Washington wouldn't have been forced to slap Arnold in the face with the bogus charges. The professional disgrace and pressure from his enemies within the Revolution (along with pressure from his wife) drove him to his betrayal. They made his actions understandable, but not excusable. Professional honor among military officers was a MUCH bigger deal back then.

As for the wife...why do polar political opposites attract like that? Matalin and Carville?

Brian, i am not excusing what Arnold did, but I am willing to look deeper than the sentiment that he was a traitor and that's all. Like I said, the matter is much more complicated than he simply didn't like the way he was treated so he changed sides. Like Crawfish points out, professional honor among officers was very different than it is today or when you served in Viet Nam; a man's honor and good name were the most precious things he had then, moreseo than any material possessions. And in the case of Arnold, he was watching his government and his commanding officer destroy his good name, all in the name of petty political rivalries. The dishonor in this case falls on everyone involved: Congress was dishorable in their refusal to remiburse him the money he spent to finance the Quebec campaign; Reed was dishonorable in lodging and publishing false allegations in order to advance his political interests; Reed was if not treasonous, then very close to it, in blackmailing General Washington into reprimanding Arnold; Washington was dishonorable in giving into the blackmail and having Arnold court martialed, and Arnold's betrayal was of course dishonorable.

As for your Vietnam experiences, I don't doubt that you had some superiors that you couldn't stand, but how many of them conspired to destroy your reputation? And how many times did Congress try to discredit you personally? The cases are different, and you have to realize that.

Fish, I guess it's the fact that when you have that relationship with someone different than you, you have the opportunity to expand your horizons. And think of the years of stimulating conversations and debates you can have...and the reconciliations too! BTW, I commented on your blog about Obama, FYI.

I could have an ongoing relationship with someone who was diametrically opposed to the things I care about most...no matter how good the sex!

Think about it, do you really think old Serpent Head honestly thinks all conservatives are evil? I am sure that he is liberal to his very soul, but you can have a strong personal relationship with someone that holds differing political views. I'm in a politically mixed marriage myself and it has worked out pretty well for 13 years now. Politics is not a constant topic of conversation between us, and we have agreed to disagree on some issues. When we do talk about politics, we are able to listen to one another and understand why we each hold the positions we do; if we are going to argue there are more important things than politics to do it about!

If Arnold's concern was his honor and his "good name", how did he think committing treason was going to fix that? That doesn't even make any sense.

Solanas shot Warhol because she was "getting even". The Palestinians are perpetually "getting even" with Israel. Booth shot Lincoln because he was "getting even" for the South.

To me, it's all one big yawner.

So, Arnold had some enemies who made his life tough. Too bad; into every life some rain must fall.

In criminal cases, motive isn't a required evidentiary matter in a prosecution. Because, bottom line, all that really matters is the action itself.

You have locked into the mindset that "Arnold committed treason and nothing else matters", whereas I say "What could drive Arnold to treason?" If you are fine with the idea that outside influences do not matter when it comes to the decision Arnold made, then fine. Whatever floats your boat. But I like to understand why people do things, and to understand that it is often necessary to look beyond "A & B" and try to determine how "J,K,& L" factored into the event.

I am not going to try to convince you that Arnold wasn't wrong, because I know he was. What I wanted to do was try to get anyone reading this to take a closer look at history and try to understnad things from a different perspective. I'm not trying to rewrite history, just trying to flesh it out because I just don't accept the fact that everything is as simple as 1+2; sometimes we have to figure out how 1+2x=4.

I never thought you were trying to justify his actions, and hope it didn't come across that way.

You pegged it perfectly correctly; I couldn't care less why he did it. I only care THAT he did it.

That's one of the reasons motive isn't a required element of a crime to be proven: we can never see what's going on inside someone's head, and it doesn't really matter anyway.

It's the actions we judge.

Of course, that's why the defense always tries to trot out a string of witnesses telling a sob story about what tough breaks life has dealt to the cretin.

To me, it's all irrelevant. I'm not the ideal "defense juror", I suspect.