unbroken_shieldwall

'treason' is subjective. he was always a brit in his mind. his letters and statements indicate that he felt the Continental Congress was carrying on an unjust war after their key grievances had been addressed and redressed

Alexander H

In his letters and statements after the ' whatever you call it '

Before hand... He himself was carrying this so called unjust war out with great bad-assery... not just Congress... killing many a Brit.

What key grievences had been addressed and redressed at the time of his ' whatever you call it ' ?

When you lead attacks as an officer in one army... killing soldiers on the other side... It becomes treason when you decide to start doing the opposite.

unbroken_shieldwall

yes because he persecuted the war to make sure parliament knew its place, once britain offered self government, he considered the war to be over. the war was not between two nationalities, it was really two political ideologies; tory and whig. carlisle offered the equivalent of commonwealth status in 1778, but was rejected because continental congress demanded independence. arnold looked at this as unjust, and saw the alliance with france as a betrayal

Alexander H

Again, this is commentary after the treason.
Arnold knew quite well that independance was announced just prior to the British, NY landing... and he knew full well that independence was the goal as he drove his men through Maine and when he stopped the British navy at Valcour island and as he assaulted Burgoyne's men at Saratoga.
Independance was not merely the goal... it had already been claimed... and he was defending that claim.
He was not fighting for a hope of commonwealth status.

unbroken_shieldwall

well thats the key thing. it is treason if he actually believed in the united states and in independence, but did he see the war as only a contest to address the greivences the colonies had? either way he idicates that he thought the continental congress was persecuting the war needlessly, when self government had already been offered and he considered the war to be over

this is what he says
" on proposals prior to the Parliamentary Commission of 1778; but having then less to do in the Cabinet than the field (I will not pronounce peremptorily, as some may, and perhaps justly, that Congress have veiled them from the public eye), I continued to be guided in the negligent confidence of a Soldier. But the whole world saw, and all American confessed, that the overtures of the second Commission exeeded our wishes and expectations; and if there was any suspicion of the national liberality, it arose from its excess.
Do any believe were at that time really entangled by an alliance with France? Unfortunate deception! they have been duped, by a virtuous credulity, in the incautions moments of intemperate passion, to give up their felicity to serve a nation wanting both the will and the power to protect us, and aiming at the destruction both of the mother country and the provinces. In the plainness of common sense, for I pretend to no casuistry, did the pretended treaty with the Court of Versailles, amount to more than an overture to America? Certainly not, because no authority had been given by the people to conclude it, nor to this very hour have they authorized its ratification. The articles of confederation remain still unsigned.
In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage an chains.
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. "

Alexander H

This is what a traitor says, after the fact, instead of ...
" Ok, I was pissed that I wasn't promoted as I deserved... and was owed back pay and Congress was investigating me for crimes, as the military commander of Philladelphia... and then Washington doesn't back me... so I was like F them ... ok, so I meet this chick... and she was really hot... and she knew this guy andy... ect "

unbroken_shieldwall

he probably had those motives, he wasn't treated very well, but you can't just dismiss everything he says. he probably didnt know anything about the declaration of independence, as he was in canada. as he says himself, he was just a soldier blindly following the orders of congress
in 1775 he said in a letter to the governor of quebec, henry cramahe
"The unjust, cruel, and tyrannical acts of a venal British Parliament, tending to enslave the American Colonies, have obliged them to appeal to God and the sword for redress."
this supports what he says in 1780:
"A redress of grievances was my only object and aim; however, I acquiesced in a step which I thought preciptate, the declaration of independence"
he also said:
" 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. "

Alexander H

I disregard it all...
He knew of the Declaration as soon as he met up with fellow Colonial troops, outside Quebec...
who had come up the Hudson/Champlain etc.

Every word sounds like patching holes and backtracking to me.
As in ... Let me tell my new " unjust, cruel, and tyrannical " friends ...
in the most nobel way I can think of... why I did it...
so that I will not be looked upon as a treasonous, crazy man.

unbroken_shieldwall

he would not have known about the declaration until long after the fighting at quebec. But he did sign an oath of allegiance to the united states in 1778, but this was a month before the carlisle commission, when it appeared britain only wanted unconditional surrender.
from my point of view I consider them all to be traitors, so it is just as easy for me to dismiss their arguments for even participating in the war against Britain(and trying to get france to invade england), as it is for you to dismiss Arnold's arguments for war against the united states. At the end of the day, they were all individuals with their own corruptions and selfish reasons, they talk about honour, freedom etc, but they are all waging war for their own profits