
How Benedict Arnold went from wartime hero to resentful traitor - neonate
https://www.weeklystandard.com/gordon-s-wood/benedict-arnolds-villainous-perfidy
======
michaelmrose
"Modern scholars haven’t gone so far as to describe Benedict Arnold as a hero
for turning against this rather squalid and nasty revolution"

Refuted in the same article in the next paragraph. Outside of tabloids I don't
know that I've read something more intellectually dishonest recently.

The actual heros of the revolution however shitty by modern ethical standards
were building their peice of the only hope for a just world we have. Democracy
however shitty we still are is a transition like unto agriculture is necessary
for our progress as a species.

He betrayed this for status and gold.

There are two sides of this of course his is just disgusting by present and
modern standards.

------
michaelmrose
It seems remarkably clear that his own status and wealth were his primary
motivation.

Nothing in the article made any sort of case for a more complicated
explanation.

Had his career trajectory continued upward he would merely be a footnote
regarding a successful general.

------
justaaron
More American Exceptionalism and Navel Gazing (tm) This is not history, but
rather rhetoric and nationalistic propaganda.

As an American by birth and upbringing, I really wish that these people would
travel and realize: 1) every nation has their "unique and special history" 2)
every nation uses that mythology to boost national pride 3) this nationalistic
"but we are special" tone only functions for a given domestic audience, given
that this is its intended target 4) It therefore contributes NOTHING to
international relations & dialogue.

Imagine the silly world of 2018 where Belgians would still go on and on about
the Belgian revolution vis-a-vis the Dutch. Get over it. It's literally
history.

While the "reformist" historians that the author decries may indeed turn
things inside out and distort the lense in an effort to expiate our national
sins (which really were sins and shouldn't be defended ad nauseaum) the author
himself seems to have divorced himself from any concept of academic
dispassionate truth-telling and be actively engaged in defending nationalist
propaganda to a laughably obvious degree. The author should visit nations
where actual dictators former and present have created similar "Gods Children"
mythos and realize the banal stupidity of such a position as adults in a world
we all share.

God does not prefer any grouping of humans to another, and most definitely
does not approve of politics nor nationalism. God told me this just now, so
you can rest assured that it's true.

The author and his myopic defenders may accuse me of being a "Left Wing
Radical" (tm) to which I may response "indeed" given another context. In this
particular context I'm merely 1) right 2) being the voice of reason in the
face of emotional rhetoric defending a belief system with the full force of a
religion, quite a dangerous belief system, when you consider that.

Please, no operating heavy machinery under the influence of "I am the son of
Amon Ra" nonsense...

~~~
kbenson
> More American Exceptionalism and Navel Gazing (tm) This is not history, but
> rather rhetoric and nationalistic propaganda.

I read it as a rather damming characterization of the revolution and those
behind it and participating in it, in both an ideological and logistical
sense. It is an article about how someone generally vilified as a great
traitor for his greed might have had more complex motivations.

Do you have specific instances in the article you would like to point out to
support your point? Since my interpretation of it is at odds with your
assesment of it, I'm left wondering if you actually are addressing the article
in question, as your first paragraph seems to to indicate, or if you are just
using it as a stepping stone to launch into your own diatribe?

I don't condemn you for holding those views, but I do condemn you for both
forcing them into a conversation in a way they don't fit and with such
condescension as to be detrimental to useful discussion. To do so implies that
the reason for you speaking out was not inform or discuss, but simply to vent
ant the expense of others, which is selfish in nature.

------
ekianjo
> In the end, writes Taylor, it was a white man’s revolution whose success
> came at the expense of everyone else—blacks, Indians, and women.

Talk about rewriting History! At the time the American Revolution was widely
regarded as a sign of progress - remember that no country had achieved freedom
from oppressive monarchs in Europe, and the Americas led the way to true
democracy. And the Founding Fathers, instead of establishing an aristocracy on
their own (which is what most revolutionaries do), created the Constitution
and gave power back to communities and states.

Looking at History with the eyes of the modern man is laughable. Progress has
to start somewhere.

~~~
lemmsjid
Why is it laughable to consider that, for example, from the perspective of the
large slave population at the time of the Revolution, the event was not so
much progress as regress, and signified what was possibly an extension of
their slavery? Acknowledging that does not make the founders of the country
any less brave or singular, nor does it suggest we should judge them against
modern standards, nor does it even remotely cause us to forget the context of
the revolution in the course of European political history. Instead it reminds
us that behind every great movement there can be and often is great horror.

~~~
ekianjo
> extension of their slavery

First, during the revolution, all slave trade was banned by the new government
of the US. And after the war, it became of matter of state jurisdiction:
several states went ahead and abolished slavery on their own in less than 10
years following the independence war. Isn't what what you call progress when
institutions made it a possibility?

~~~
pretendscholar
A cynical take on that would be that Jefferson and the other southern
aristocrats wanted to limit the supply of slaves so that the value of their
estates would skyrocket. I don't actually know much about the time so don't
take that musing too seriously.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I would recommend reading about the founding fathers, including Jefferson.
Jefferson wrote extensively against slavery and even included as such in the
initial draft of the declaration of independence (without going so far as to
make it unlawful) - but that was apparently stripped out by the Continental
Congress. In 1784 he attempted to pass legislation federally banning slavery -
it failed to pass by one vote.

Of course this might seem hypocritical given he indeed did own a substantial
number of slaves, but as today the appeal of convenience often outweighs
ideology when systems are widespread. For instance Warren Buffet has argued
that a larger tax on the ultra-rich would be socially beneficial and I think
he certainly does believe that, yet of course he himself does everything he
can to minimize his own tax bill in the mean time. On the consumer level, I
doubt any of us really support slavery or systems of near slavery yet it
rarely stops us from buying Apple products in the near slavery case, or
Hershey/Nestle/etc chocolate in the literal slavery case.

On abolition versus the phasing out issue, Jefferson also wrote there. He
wanted to phase out slavery and ensure the slaves were skilled, educated, and
had sufficient resources to make it on their own. He felt that abruptly
abolishing slavery would lead to violence, both from dependent slave owners
who would not go peacefully as well as from slaves themselves. He also thought
that abrupt abolition would lead to poor outcomes for the slaves as they would
set free in a land driven by the merit of the individual with generally
minimal to no education, skills, or ability.

To avoid the system you mention where slave owners would simply entrench
themselves by 'banning competition', he even proposed the notion of the US
government buying slave children for a nominal fee, training them, and then
sending them abroad (to Santo Domingo in particular) to make their way as
skilled freemen. Essentially, a way to ease the transition from slavery to
freedom for slave owners and slaves alike. One must say such a system feels
dystopic, yet on the other hand it's interesting to consider whether such an
idea would have had a better social outcome in the longrun. The civil war
divides of this nation remain to this very day, as does the inequity of the
now long distanced descendents of former slaves.

[https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-
Sl...](https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-
Slavery-1269536)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Nestle claims to have a zero tolerance policy toward slavery, see
[https://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-
rights/answers/nestl...](https://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-
rights/answers/nestle-child-labour-supply-chains)

 _We have zero tolerance for illegal trafficking or slavery. If we find any
evidence of it then we report it to appropriate authorities immediately._

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I'm curious. Did you expect them to praise and embrace slavery on their
website?

Slavery enables companies such as Nestle to source their resources for costs
far below what they would have to pay otherwise. They do so while
simultaneously condemning slavery and making some token efforts to combat it.
Just enough to keep their carefully crafted public relations positive enough
that it doesn't effect their bottom line. Though for what it's worth, I doubt
that any of Hershey, Nestle, etc actually 'like' slavery, but they love the
profits it enables, and that's undoubtedly been the story throughout much of
history.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Good points, thanks for the thoughtful response.

I started reading this[1] Wikipedia entry. Troubling.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_cocoa_productio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_cocoa_production)

------
dagenix
> Arnold’s career, written, as many of the best and most readable histories of
> the revolution are written these days, by an independent scholar who is not
> caught up in the academic world’s obsessions with race and gender.

Possibly the most neckbeard thing you can write. Race and gender matter. To
ignore that is to say that they don't. But, this article is celebrating a
white man ignoring both those things?

