More musing on Benedict Arnold

I have to admit a fascination with Benedict Arnold since his efforts helped to push forward the agenda he later described as "sinister views at the expence of the public interest". Arnold's military victories against the British, in particular the victory at Saratoga, helped to secure the French aid he so despised. It also raises the question of how many citizens were aware of the machinations that went on during the War for Independence? I have often mentioned French Involvement in this war as a contrast to the fighting farmer militiaman one is given to believe fought the war.

How many were "duped" into believing that the War for Independence was beneficial or necessary? How many would have preferred Union to independence yet remained silent? what would have been the outcome had Arnold supported Union and the Tory cause?

Arnold mentions in his letter that "we raised arms against a brother". I am assuming that he means England,but the War for Independence was a civil war. Are the Loyalists the people Arnold refers to as "the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion"? What if Arnold has cast his lot with those who argued for restraint in dealing with their grievances with the motherland?

There is a part of me who sees two possible methods of defeating the rebels: military and civil. The civil method would have been to find those who were inclined toward the motherland and keep them informed of the overatures by people such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to the French. Would John Adams, who defended Captain Preston and his men, be inclined to a slow and reasoned approach with the motherland that would have sustained Union?

To be quite honest, when I see what has happened in this country, I am sure that many who supported Independence would regret that action. Benedict Arnold demonstrates that I don't need to travel far into the future to see evidence of this. As George Washington said about Shays' Rebellion:

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious."

I also find it interesting that another supporter of Independence, Samuel Chase, said: “our republican Constitution will sink to Mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments”. This statement is even more interesting in light of the "tea party" movement. Unfortunately (or fortunately), most colonials were not supportive of the original Tea Party's wanton destruction of property.

It seems that people can be affected by events even if they hope to remain neutral. Unfortunately, you've got to fuck up royally to admit you made a mistake after wasting lives in a war.

Benedict Arnold--A true Patriot

I have to admit a love for alternative history: the big what if? Stuff like Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove's The Two Georges, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga, and Redcoats' Revenge: An Alternate History of the War of 1812. A part of this comes from my conviction that the founders would not have fought the war for American Independence if they saw the ultimate outcome, especially in terms of how the United States has turned out. One can read the grievances in the Declaration of Independence and find that the Tories were correct when they said they would "rather be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants less than a mile away" since many of those grievances still exist.

But does one even need to go beyond the period of the War for American Independence to find proof of my conviction? Benedict Arnold was a strong believer in the Independence movement: whhich included spending his own money toward that effort. His numerous military victories for the Independence movement have been discounted based upon his "treason". Likewise, the reasons for his "treason" have been clouded over and covered with selfish reasons, although I have heard that one reason was that he was opposed to the Alliance with France. Other reasons are that he was disapppointed with Congress.

I have found the text of a letter he wrote to the American Public about his "treason" and it appears to confirm my opinion:

A very few words, however, shall suffice upon a subject so personal; for to the thousands who suffer under the tyranny of the usurpers in the revolted provinces, as well as to the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion, this instance of my conduct can want no vindication; and as to the class of men who are criminally protracting the war from sinister views at the expence of the public interest, I prefer their enmity to their applause. I am, therefore, only concerned in this address, to explain, myself to such of my countrymen, as want abilities, or opportunities, to detect the artifices by which they are duped...

With the highest satisfaction I bear testimony to my old fellow soldiers and citizens, that I find solid ground to rely upon the clemency of our Sovereign, and abundant conviction that it is the generous intention of Great Britain not only to leave the rights and privileges of the colonies unimpaired, together with their perpetual exemption from taxation, but to superadd such further benefits as my consist with the common prosperity of the empire. In short, I fought for much less than the parent country is as willing to grant to her colonies as they can be to receive or enjoy.

Some may think I continued in the struggle of these unhappy days too long, and others that I quitted it too soon-- To the first I reply, that I did not see with their eyes, nor perhaps had so favourable a situation to look from, and that to our common master I am willing to stand or fall. In behalf of the candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly--in the bands I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their own safety before it is too late; and with respect to that herd of censurers, whose enmity to me originates in their hatred to the principles by which I am now led to devote my life to the re-union of the British empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured, that concious of the rectitude of my intentions; I shall treat their malice and calumnies with contempt and neglect.

The problem with the War for American Independence is that it was a civil war, but it needed a pretense of righteousness to cover the fact that it was a dirty war: Us v. them. But many of "them" were also colonials (e.g., Tenche Coxe)! Unfortunately, Arnold, like another of my pantheon: Banastre Tarleton, were on the losing side and make lovely bogeymen and scapegoats in the American Myth factory which posits that ordinary people rose up to fight a foreign enemy. Never mind that the war was between three (or more) well-trained armies and Arnold was able to live out his days and died in London. The picture at the top of this piece comes from the house where he lived out his days in peace.

I would love to attribute Arnold's actions to prescience since I find it very interesting how he confirms my belief that those who supported Independence would be tremendously disappointed with how this country has turned out. If hindsight is 20-20, how many supporters of Independence would have supported insurrection over reason as the answer to their woes? Or to again quote Samuel Adams:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

And ask doesn't the precedent of rebellion sanction that as a method of change: whether against a king or a republic? Was that a precedent that should be kept or does that lead to another form of tyranny?

More Matthew White

I have to admit that I would like to meet this person since he engages in the type of speculation that I like. I just found his Surreal Histories section about alternative histories. I like his Balkanized North America Section or What America would have looked like if every separatist movement in U.S. and Canadian history had succeeded:

What is the most fragmented that North America could have been? There are several plausible scenarios (some based on different patterns of settlement from Europe, others on different fracture lines) but I chose 1787 as the point of divergence from real history. In this alternate reality, the westward expansion of the Anglo-American people proceeded pretty much as it did in our reality, but the United States government just couldn't keep up. Every national identity crisis resolved itself in favor of the separatists instead.

Although this is an extremely unlikely scenario to begin with, I didn't want to just randomly subdivide the continent. I looked for regions which either ...

1. administered themselves as autonomous nations at some point in American history, or ...
2. shed blood to achieve or maintain their independence, or at least ...
3. threatened to.

Of course, the Native American tribes throughout the continent fit all these criteria, but I limited myself to only three native enclaves.

He also has a section comparing the US to Rome.

Even more fascinating is his What if the anti-government forces of the 1990s had risen in rebellion Section. This scenario is not as totally impossible as some people might believe. In the range of improbability, it's more like a ten-to-one shot, rather than a hundred-to-one shot. In the early 1990s the USA probably came closer to open rebellion than at any time since the 1960s. The hard right seems to believe that an event such as Waco or Ruby Ridge should have been a spark for rebellion, but it's not like any militiamen rushed to relieve the siege. White believes that the most likely outcome of a war between the Feds and the extreme right is that the extreme right is crushed like bugs, even before the network news anchors can move their mobile newsdesks, satellite link-ups and tactical hairdryers out to the battlefield.

I really want to meet Matthew White!

History is written by the victors

Ever wonder what life would be like if the British had won the war for American Independence or the French the French and Indian Wars? I do. Not sure which would be a better scenario. The first, the US would be an intelligent Canada (no sales tax on stamps, gun control, "socialised" medicine, land planning etc.) and the Second, kind of a larger Belgium with French, English, German, and Dutch being the official languages.

Anyway, I found this badge in my travels:


Sure, it is for the Island of Jersey Militia, but think with all these RKBA people talking about being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Now, what is to prevent people from deciding that the US war for Independence was illegal and that the current government neglects the welfare of its citizens? I mean there are loads of us who have loyalist ancestors who decided it was better to keep their traps shut than say the rebels were wrong. 50,000 Loyalists left the states for Canada. And, Benedict Arnold, the true patriot, ended up living his days in London (not a bad option). Additionally, as I continuously point out, the REAL reason for the rebellion was an out of control military.

Now, Isn't the current military establishment pretty out of control? I mean several trillion for a couple of wars that really don't make sense as far as security goes. Give me a break, Iraq is a failure as is Afghanistan.

So, watch out for the Royal New Jersey Militia!