
Why Did Benedict Arnold Betray America? (2018) - Anon84
https://www.history.com/news/why-did-benedict-arnold-betray-america?cid=sf109346595
======
Merrill
>"Wetherell says that the shortest explanation for his treason is that he
"married the wrong person.""

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold#Plotting_to_ch...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold#Plotting_to_change_sides)

The wiki article is much more informative. The history.com article, for
example, doesn't mention how severely wounded he had been, with the wounded
leg 2 inches shorter than the other.

------
mattrp
This is the portrayal that is depicted in Turn originally on AMC. One thing
that is overlooked by this article is the role of the British military
culture. They were immensely corrupt and happy to sit ensconced in New York
with officer’s commissions while nearly bankrupting the English crown. A man
like Arnold was not satisfied to simply beat them on the battlefield. And when
they refused to come out to the battlefield, his contempt turned to jealousy
of his British counterparts and hatred for his former revolutionary comrades.
There’s no question he sought company in a wife and in laws who sympathized
with the British because if he were to execute a supreme betrayal he would
need solace and comfort at home. Ultimately what he wanted was the spoils of
war and he went to any length to get it - so much so that his behavior
disgusted even the corrupt British military. Arnold was no hero. He was simply
a sociopath.

~~~
burtonator
I was also reading that one of the reasons might have been his war wounds that
were apparently agonizing him ...

They probably reminded him constantly of the fact that he didn't get the
promotions he expected.

It's definitely an interesting case and we won't really ever now for certain
what actually happened.

Whether he was legitimately scoured by the congress or if he was just a
sociopath expecting things he didn't deserve.

... I think the comparisons to Trump aren't valid though.

At least Arnold was accomplished and competent. Trump is neither.

~~~
thrower123
It's worth remembering that the situation of the colonies was rather grim in
1780.

Washington was locked in an extended stalemate around New York, struggling to
keep morale up, supplies acquired, and his army from melting away.

The British southern strategy was off to a smashing start, inflicting a series
of bad defeats through the Carolinas. Then Gates, who Arnold hated and thought
got the credit he deserved for Saratoga, was given command in the south, and
immediately disgraced himself.

There were also a whole series of other debacles around Newport, RI, and the
disastrous Penobscot campaign.

Not long after Arnold's defection, there were several major mutinies by
formations of the Continental Army over extended enlistments, lack of pay and
poor conditions.

The whole situation was much more touch and go than it appears in hindsight.

~~~
sushid
Reading the Hamilton biography, I was shocked to learn just how low the morale
was at Washington’s camp. When I learned this in AP US History, I understood
it more as disgruntled soldiers grumbling about the lack of good food.

Reading the book, I realize it was more like the men were on the cusp of an
all out rebellion and it was really Washington’s carisma barely holding it
together as the men starved and froze to death with over a year without pay.
They also had to periodically execute the most vocal dissedents, which to me
was very shocking.

------
jdsully
Tl;Dr; We don't know and this article sheds little extra light on the subject.
It asks questions and doesn't answer them.

I've left the conclusion here to save you time:

> “Spying was one thing, but his willingness to switch sides in the middle of
> an armed conflict, and fight against the men who had a year earlier been
> fighting by his side, was something that people of that time and maybe ours
> could simply not understand.”

~~~
softwaredoug
I mean, I wasn’t expecting original research in the article. So I learned a
lot reading it...

------
hacknat
America wasn’t a country yet. There was no country to betray. I’m an American,
but, c’mon, a lot of people living in the, now, US saw themselves as British
subjects. Sure he joined the revolution, but not everyone who joined the
American Revolution was aligned with its goals.

~~~
mieseratte
America had declared its independence years before his betrayal, and he threw
his lot in with the Continental Army which he then betrayed.

~~~
Supermancho
> America had declared its independence years before his betrayal,

That's not enough to make it a "country" in practice any more than joining a
startup makes someone a company man. America isn't some mythic entity that
sprung out of the head of Zeus with devoted followers.

> Sure he joined the revolution, but not everyone who joined the American
> Revolution was aligned with its goals.

Given the disparity and ignorance between the population about independence,
it's very likely the philosophical derivations were innumerable but aligned
somewhere along "for it", "against it", "indifferent while it still suits me".
This is basically the plot for The Patriot - ie it would follow that if the
Americans had won a battle and executed wounded British soldiers, then
conscripted/shot his sons, the protagonist's motivations would be the same for
the opposing side he ended up on.

~~~
chrisco255
The United States had its own government, the Continental Congress, and
declared its independence in 1776. It was very much a country, albeit an
embattled one.

The population wasn't ignorant about the implications of going to war with the
world's largest empire. Many of them were veterans of the French-Indian war.

~~~
Retric
They did some things that countries do in 1776, but failed to do others for
example a national court system. I think the usual description in such
situations is to say they had a government, as it’s not uncommon historically
for things like governments in exile to exist.

That said as the colonies had been doing stuff like enforcing laws and
collecting taxes it’s more reasonable to call them a collection of governments
than say the United States existed as a country in 1776.

~~~
jcranmer
One of the chief demands of the war was to force the Parliament and Britain to
deal with the Continental Congress as a whole, instead of the several colonies
individually. It was also understood throughout the war that the Continental
Congress had the exclusive right to represent the Americans in foreign
affairs.

It's hard to draw a firm line between polities that constitute a "country" and
those that are supranational organizations. But the Articles of
Confederation's version of Congress seems to clearly be classifiable as
"country"\--it's further on the country side of the spectrum than, say, the
EU.

~~~
Retric
The EU has Diplomats, treaties with other nations, laws and a court system, a
shared and enforced border, leadership, an assembly, etc.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_E...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_European_Union_to_China),
[https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_...](https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_118238.pdf)

I think it’s clearly more country like than the US was in 1776, and still not
a country. Though as you say, it’s not exactly a clear line in the sand.

~~~
jcranmer
As I noted, Congress was empowered with the sole authority to handle
international relations: the states (e.g., Virginia) couldn't enter into an
international agreement. That's not true of the European countries vis-a-vis
the EU.

~~~
Retric
The articles of confederation where still being debated through 1776 and not
ratified until 1781. In 1776 the Second Continental Congress began acting as
the provisional government, but it’s authority was unclear and things where
very add-hock.

Even in 1781 congress had zero power of taxation, regulation of foreign trade,
or interstate commerce which is a rather strong limitation on being an actual
country.

