1
   

When did Benedict Arnold first become a Tory?

 
 
mulout
 
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 11:34 pm
John Jay, first Chief Justis of the Supreme Court, told a friend that the history of the American Revolution would never be written because too many reputations would be ruined. With that comment in mind, when do you suppose Benedict Arnold first used his station to attempt to turn the tide against the revolution and in favor of the loyalists and British ends? I am thinking in particular of Benedict and the Canadian campaign, and then at Saratoga.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 2,524 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Jan, 2011 03:00 am
The nascent United States would never have held onto northern New York had it not been for Benedict Arnold. Arnold's slide began long, long aftward, when he was given the command at Philadelphia. In 1775, -76, -77 and -78, Arnold was the very savior of the revolution.
0 Replies
 
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 11:45 pm
@setanta
B. Arnold was accused by members of the Continental Congress with treason concerning his losses during the Canadian campaign (in which he was never commissioned but merely inserted himself into the action) and then subsequently, upon acquittal and commission at Philadelphia, was arrested, and put under guard by his commander (in norther New York) at Saratoga.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2011 03:44 am
Arnold was accused of such things throughout the war. So were many other people. At one point, there was a movement to get rid of Washington, and replace him with Horatio Gates (now there would have been a real invitation to disaster). Read about the Conway Cabal sometime. It is one of the dangers of a shallow reading of history thaty you can put too great an emphasis on events which are only apparently unique, because you are uniformed as to just how common they were. The Second Continental Congress was a disaster, and men like Washington won the war despite Congress, and not because of it.

Arnold was sent to Canada by Washington. While it is true that he proposed the plan to Washington, and urged his plan on him, it is false to say that he had no commission. I wonder, if you consider yourself to well informed about Arnold, why you have bothered to come here to ask this question.

There is no evidence prior to 1779 that Arnold was not devoted to cause to which he had adhered from 1775 onward, and for the succcess of which his participation was so crucial. If you wish to believe otherwise, help yourself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2011 03:46 am
By the way, Gates did not arrest Arnold. He attempted to prevent him from taking part in military operations, but he did not put him under arrest. You are woefully ill-informed and uninformed.
0 Replies
 
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2011 11:54 pm
The problem of deciding whether putting Arnold in a tent under guard amounted to being 'under arrest' could be decided if the records existed, but sadly they do not... yep, you guessed it, burned to a crisp. Three fires occurred, two of which Jefferson's administration claimed were arson intended to destroy Federalist records at the war department.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jan, 2011 03:35 am
@mulout,
Now you're just making it up as you go along. No reliable record ever existed that Arnold was "put under arrest," and confined to his tent with a guard is obviously a produce of your overheated imagination. I love the conspiracy theory touch, though . . . as though Jefferson ever gave a rat's ass what happened to any Federalist records.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jan, 2011 05:13 am
I've got a couple of questions which may help to clarify this for anyone else wasting their time on your thread. If "the records" were burned during the Jefferson administartion (1801-1809), how do you know about it? If there is another source, then not only is your objection ludicrous, but it leads to another question--why hasn't any reputable scholar mentioned this in the last 200 years?

You're violating Occam's Razor, anyway. The situation at Saratoga 232 years ago can be adequately explained by the records we have, there's no need for goofy conspiracy theories. Prior to Gates' arrival, Arnold commanded the army facing Burgoyne. After Gates arrived with his commission from Congress, he and Arnold quarrelled publicly and loudly--they had shouting matches in front of the officers and men in the bivouac. Arnold, who held his commission from Washington, demanded that he be transferred back to Washington's command. Gates produced the necessary documents, but Arnold didn't leave--he sat around sulking in his tent. And a good thing he did, too. Gates' order relieving Arnold of his command, and the transfer back to Washington's command have survived your alleged fire.

You really either shouldn't make **** up, or you should do a more convincing job.
0 Replies
 
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 11:37 pm
Well, that's the problem of with conspiracy theories, they're slippery little buggers, you never know which way they're goin' go. If they would just be all wrong it would make things a lot easier, but like that guy that used to be on one of the morning TV shows said one time, "Just because it is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it isn't true." (I think he may have been fired shortly after that, but no connection of course.)

And the above blogger is correct, what would Jefferson's cabinet care about war department records? Or Benedict Arnold, or anything? They had their own problems, right? And how would we know what Jefferson thought anyway? It was H. A. Washington (not George's son, he didn't have any kids) that compiled and edited Jefferson's 'autobiography' and papers anyway. I mean if Jefferson had bad thoughts about the Federalists Washington would have dismissed them as impolitic anyway. So there's that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 05:53 am
You're historically incoherent. You still haven't explained how records could have been burned two hundred years ago, and yet you know about them, while all reputable scholars in the intervening two centuries are unaware of them. You haven't addressed the logical objection to your bullshit story about Gates arresting Arnold, which is that the version of the incident between Gates and Arnold which survives adequately explains events.

Referring to some unnamed pundit's remarks about conspiracy theories is no adequate response to the holes in your story. Once again, if you know so goddamned much, why did you come here to ask your question?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 05:57 am
Love, is never having to say your Tory
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 06:01 am
That, my friend, is just as worthwhile a contribution to history as anything offered by the author of this thread . . .
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2011 11:32 pm
@Setanta,
First off, and I don't mean to make you madder than you already seem to be but I would suggest that you stop worrying about Benedict Arnold (this seems to be a sore spot with you in light of all your inappropriate swearing) and that you might consider 1) stop commenting on this thread (you know it is a bit much to think that you personally are in charge of protecting the origin myth story of the nation, I can assure you, others think like yourself) and 2) get some anger management help. I mean no harm and hope you the best in your endeavors with your employers.

As to the fires at the war department, the records burned up. The minor question is who set the first two fires and why. (The British set the third fire burning up what was left of the war records some years later). People in Jefferson's cabinet said it was an arson committed by the Federalists to cover stuff up. Personally, I don't know what burned up Sparky, if I knew I'd write my own book and sell it.

In your comment about Benedict loudly arguing with his commanding officer, and then subsequently being remanded to his tent (with or without armed guard, from which tent he escaped and ran around commandeering someone else's troops, which is a crime), are you sure you are thinking of the Saratoga business, or are you thinking of the other time earlier when he acted just as peculiarly toward the commander of the Green Mountain Boys on their way to Canada. Benedict went after Wayne the same way and ended up challenging Wayne's second in command to a duel, although the guy blew Arnold off as a nut case and refused to have a big shootout.

You remember that doctor, the head doctor of the American army around Boston, that turned out to be another insider British loyalist traitor, that assigned all the doctors to a few hospitals and left the regiments in the field without enough doctors to take care of the wounded? Pretty sneaky right? When this sucker was caught the next guy put in charge sent the doctors out with the troops where they belonged and didn't keep then locked up back at the hospital.

So what do ya think, is this guy Benedict Arnold like that, sneaky business and up to no good, or what?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2011 04:48 am
@mulout,
I'm not angry. It is an all too common and puerile rhetorical trick to state that someone is angry if you can't cope with their objections to the bullshit you are peddling. I have no stake in "origin myths"--and i am bemused by people who attempt to peddle dubious stories, especially with an appeal to undemonstrable and hilarious conspiracy stories.

Since you don't know (as you admit) who allegedly set fires at "the war department" (there were in fact no separate offices for cabinet departments at that time--decent housing was at a premium in Washington, never mind office space), it is a dubious proposition that they even took place. You have provided not a shred of evidence for your claim.

You continue to demonstrate an abyssmal ignorance of history. First, i did not at any time say that Armold was "remanded" to his tent. He asked Gates for a transfer, it was granted, and then Arnold chose to remain on the Hudson. Neither did i at any time state that he "commandeered" anyone's troops.

Arnold only came into contact with Ethan Allen at the time that Ticonderoga was taken along with its gus. That was before he asked for and received Washington's permission to mount an expedition to Canada in support of the troops which Montgomery had alread lead there.

If you intend to continue to spout history, learn it first.

You are the one who has entitled this thread about Arnold, so it is hilarious to see you objecting to my comments on the titular subject. Your alleged quote of John Jay is hilarious, too. He may have said that, although this is something else for which you provide no source. But it is hilarious because Jay served in public office in New York until 1778, then did a stint of about nine months as President of the Continental Congress (a figurehead position), before going off to Spain as American minister. He remained in Europe for the rest of the revolution. I would take any statements from Jay about how the revolution was conducted with many grains of salt.

It appears to me that your only purpose in coming here is to peddle your goofy conspiracy story. If you can't do any better than that, i wonder why you bother.

But be assured that you don't anger me. In fact, you provide a good deal of entertainment.
0 Replies
 
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 10:29 pm
Concerning the Fires of 1800.

Following are statements of government employees in depositions relative to the fires in the war and treasury departments. American State Papers Miscellaneous Vol 1 p 247 3

On Saturday evening Nov 8 1800 a fire started in the house of Jonathan Jackson at Pennsylvania Ave and 22d Street, destroying the adjoining building occupied by the war office. Few of the public records were saved. The dead body of Mr Jackson was found in his house. 1 A second fire occurred at the Treasury Department on Jan 21,1801.

Cabinet members of the incoming Jefferson administration charged that the fires ...were a part of a scheme of the Federalists to destroy the public records.2

1 AHNC, Intelligencer Nov 10 and 12, 1800
2 A History of the National Capitol, p 618
3 AHNC Nov 11 1800 Report of House Committee 2d Sess No 146 Feb 28 1801 American State Papers Vol 1 p 247
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 11:03 pm
@mulout,
You're really not very swift. Your original claim was that the fires were intended to destroy Federalist records. Now you're claiming that the Jefferson administration claimed that the fires were part of a Federalist plot to destroy public records. You need to keep your story straight.

mulout wrote:
Three fires occurred, two of which Jefferson's administration claimed were arson intended to destroy Federalist records at the war department.


None of this silly conspiracy theory crapola has any bearing on the stupid claims you made about Arnold and Gates. Those records are intact, and the corroborative evidence from witnesses is too extensive to be brushed off. Additionally, of course, Federalists didn't even exist until a decade after the Saratoga incident.

You make this **** up as you go along, don't you? Come one, you can tell me . . . it won't tell anyone else.
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 11:11 pm
@Setanta,
Distinction without a difference.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 11:19 pm
No, it's a very important distinction. If you can't keep your story straight, why should anyone believe your conspiracy horseshit? That an event occurs is almost never a subject of debate in modern history (since about 1500), but the meaning is important. That the Japanese attacked Hawaii is not in doubt. That there was a conspiracy lead by FDR to prevent the American commanding officers there from knowing that the Japanese might attack is not only a subject for doubt, but is flatly contradicted by the November 26th war warning message.

You allege a conspiracy, and you can't keep straight your account of the conspiracy. And you alleged it to support an idiotic story about Arnold and Gates, which took place ten years before the Federalists existed, and more than 20 years before the fires. You are for **** when it comes to historiography.

If you're going to make up stories, you need to keep them straight, and you need to make them plausible. Neither the Federalists nor the Republicans would have had any reason to whitewash either Arnold or Gates.
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 11:30 pm
@Setanta,
Distinction without a difference, the class contains the set.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 11:40 pm
You have failed to provide any evidence for an arrest of Arnold. You have failed to provide any evidence for a conspiracy. There is no reason to take your claims seriously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » When did Benedict Arnold first become a Tory?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 06:33:29