FWIW he's fairly anonymous outside the USA. It was in Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast that I first encountered him properly (not counting a reference I didn't understand in "Scrubs" a decade or so earlier). When it comes down to it, he was a bit more of a complex Bad Guy than your Adolfs Hitler or your Judases Iscariot.
What is odd is the suggestion that "Benedict" is ill favoured due to the memory of Benedict Arnold, while more universally and unambiguously bad guys (from the perspective of the US state) like Robert E. Lee and David Duke don't have this
More complicated in some ways but also surprisingly similar in that he would rather see his country burn than see someone else get credit for it's success.
Many people here will remember what they learned or heard, and instinctively downvote because they believe Arnold was a traitor through and through, and that it's not worth considering anything otherwise.
But as I recall he was a relatively successful officer in the US army in the war of independence. But he'd been overlooked within the US military (and incurred financial losses to boot) which make his decision to work with the British a bit more understandable. Looking back in hindsight with the USA as a distinct and separate nation, it looks like he's betrayed the nation of his birth ... but in the context of a civil war where there are two factions broadly of the same "nationality" fighting for independence it's a little more complex than that
Eh, he tried to sell a military fort (West Point) to the British for what would be about $5M today. I don't care how butthurt he was over a lack of recognition (he was a Major General, FFS), he earned the "traitor" moniker 100%.
If I read this correctly, Arnold was responsible for the victory of Saratoga, but public accolades were given to Horatio Gates, who would later prove completely incompetent (and something of a coward at Camden).
I am both aware of those circumstances, and considered them. At the end of the day, Saratoga was won by hoards of soldiers largely anonymous to history, and yet they didn't betray their country for lack of credit. On the balance, Arnold's motives appear self-serving, and his willingness to betray his allegiance for a seemingly better deal made him a traitor.
There is nuance here that you might not be aware of. He just had higher loyalty to his state than the union, something that was common back then. For better or for worse, the United States became dramatically more centralized after the Civil War, both in terms of political power and in the public's consciousness. One way I've heard it expressed is that before the Civil War, people would say "The United States are..." but after the Civil War people say "The United States is..."
edit: also please refrain from telling people what to feel, it's rude and hinders the conversation
People despise traitors because they pretend to be on one side while actually working for another. That's why Benedict Arnold is despised and Lee is not. Lee may turned against the Federal government, but he never pretended to be on a different side then he was.
>The argument on Lee not being a traitor is bad and you should feel bad for making it.
The argument that it is some sort of obvious black and white issue is horse shit you should feel bad about your ignorance of history. Lee's decision to serve for the confederacy was not morally cut and clear either way at the time. He was both obligated to serve the federal government and obligated to serve his home state. This was obvious to even casual observers and was the subject of much speculation at the time.
To make a comparison that innumerable people seven score and thirteen years ago made, George Washington took half a dozen oaths to serve the crown over the course of his military service prior to the American Revolution yet when his people chose to declare independence he fought on their side.
I don't really know much about Lee, and I have avoided study of the U.S. Civil War (although I did read most of Grant's memoirs, which likely paint a very biased picture).
However, if Lee was in a state militia, would he not have pledged loyalty to the governor, and not to the president?
This in no way atones for what the Union would see as crime.
If being a traitor was such a big thing I would have imagined the attempt to overthrow the election on 6th January 2020 would have been more broadly opposed. What is more traitorous than attempting a coup?
My point is not to relitigate old battles though - people like and dislike stuff based on their gut, which is fairly arbitrary and sometimes contradictory and I am not immune to that myself. My point was that it's interesting one person gets a pass for being universally awful and another has their role in a revolutionary war completely boiled down to "Benedict Arnold bad!" when the story is "Benedict Arnold bad ... but also at one point good, and interesting and worth reading about"
I expect that GP meant broadly opposed [amongst the population]. You could argue that even with this assumption, it would qualify, as 7 in 10 Americans do think the insurrection was wrong. But I can see the merit in arguing that 3 in 10 supporting it is uncomfortably high.
I read the parent to mean that -- apparently in some cases -- actions alone are insufficient to indicate treason: the actor has to be seen as a traitor. Hence the apparent disjunction between the general regard of Americans for Benedict Arnold and Trump.
There a lot of other famous Roberts and Davids, to dilute any negative connotation associated with Robert E. Lee and David Duke. Benedict has a lot less dilution powers. Furthermore, most people don't care or know about David Duke and Robert E. Lee is seen by many as a noble and sympathetic character.
Benedict Arnold is the only one of those three who will be consistently seen as a big and important villain by the general american public.
Robert E. Lee was indicted for treason, but the nation favored reconciliation over retribution, and the treason of the South was ignored by the country as a whole. Lee's prosecution was later dropped. If Johnson had gotten his way and prosecuted the leaders of the South, the US' feelings towards Lee today might be different.
Yeah up until he started losing his mind near the end Hitler mostly did what the people who elected him expected him to do. It might not be good or what everyone else wanted but there's no real betrayal there IMO.
No American parent perhaps. The name doesn't have negative connotations elsewhere. For me, it's more associated with the previous pope and the actor than with Arnold.
"Benedict Arnold (October 5, 1780 – March 3, 1849) was an American politician from New York, and a member of the House of Representatives."
"He was named in honor of the famous Benedict Arnold at a time during the American Revolutionary War when he was still seen as a hero of the United States, stemming from the capture of Fort Ticonderoga."
That's interesting. Benedict Arnold's treason was exposed in late september and this guy was born early october before his parents found out about the treason. So news definitely spread slowly back then.
It says he had 12 children. I wonder if he named any of his sons benedict.
The name also shows up occasionally as "Jude" (Jude Law, for example), which is fair given that there was another Apostle by that name. It's still far more often than you run into anyone called Pontius Pilate these days.
I've vouched for this comment, since it is actually relevant to what it is responding to, but a glance suggests all your other comments are spam. Spamming forums is not generally an effective way of being heard if those forums take spam-prevention seriously.
I've always assumed that various Greenevilles, Greenesboros were named after him.
The Wikipedia entry for Greenesboro, North Carolina, says that it is.
In addition to the nameless plaque in the Old Cadet Chapel at West Point, there is also a nameless statue to him at the Saratoga National Historical Park. The statue commemorates his leg, which was wounded in the battle there, but doesn't mention who the leg belonged to: https://www.nps.gov/places/boot-monument.htm
"Had he not become the most famous turncoat in U.S. history,"
"Patriot" and "traitor" are quite nuanced notions. At the time, a (US) patriot would of course have been considered a traitor (by Britain) because they were all British citizens.
Here we have a patriot who is a turncoat (ie a traitor).
If he had gone straight over to their side, that would have been fine. If he had stayed out of the army, that would have been fine, even passing messages. But he swore an oath. He wanted a big payoff from the Crown, and title, in exchange for handing over his command. He didn't get it.
> Had he not become the most famous turncoat in U.S. history, his remains might have been interred in a grand or historically meaningful tomb, visited by thousands every year. Arnold's betrayal, however, overshadows any contribution to American independence, and his tomb is visited by only a dozen or so every day.
What’s the difference between thousands a year and a dozen a day? Sounds to me like he did pretty well in terms of building up a following...
71 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadWhat is odd is the suggestion that "Benedict" is ill favoured due to the memory of Benedict Arnold, while more universally and unambiguously bad guys (from the perspective of the US state) like Robert E. Lee and David Duke don't have this
But as I recall he was a relatively successful officer in the US army in the war of independence. But he'd been overlooked within the US military (and incurred financial losses to boot) which make his decision to work with the British a bit more understandable. Looking back in hindsight with the USA as a distinct and separate nation, it looks like he's betrayed the nation of his birth ... but in the context of a civil war where there are two factions broadly of the same "nationality" fighting for independence it's a little more complex than that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Gates
It does appear that Benedict Arnold did greater service to the United States than the harm of his betrayal.
Robert E. Lee might be seen as a traitor, but only if everyone citizen of the CSA is.
I'm not aware of David Duke being a traitor.
edit: also please refrain from telling people what to feel, it's rude and hinders the conversation
Or do you think there is no distinction between being a rebel and a traitor?
That's not an appropriate argument for HN.
The argument that it is some sort of obvious black and white issue is horse shit you should feel bad about your ignorance of history. Lee's decision to serve for the confederacy was not morally cut and clear either way at the time. He was both obligated to serve the federal government and obligated to serve his home state. This was obvious to even casual observers and was the subject of much speculation at the time.
To make a comparison that innumerable people seven score and thirteen years ago made, George Washington took half a dozen oaths to serve the crown over the course of his military service prior to the American Revolution yet when his people chose to declare independence he fought on their side.
However, if Lee was in a state militia, would he not have pledged loyalty to the governor, and not to the president?
This in no way atones for what the Union would see as crime.
They were products of their times.
My point is not to relitigate old battles though - people like and dislike stuff based on their gut, which is fairly arbitrary and sometimes contradictory and I am not immune to that myself. My point was that it's interesting one person gets a pass for being universally awful and another has their role in a revolutionary war completely boiled down to "Benedict Arnold bad!" when the story is "Benedict Arnold bad ... but also at one point good, and interesting and worth reading about"
Not like the patriots who exposed war crimes.
Benedict Arnold is the only one of those three who will be consistently seen as a big and important villain by the general american public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold_(congressman)
"Benedict Arnold (October 5, 1780 – March 3, 1849) was an American politician from New York, and a member of the House of Representatives."
"He was named in honor of the famous Benedict Arnold at a time during the American Revolutionary War when he was still seen as a hero of the United States, stemming from the capture of Fort Ticonderoga."
It says he had 12 children. I wonder if he named any of his sons benedict.
"They had twelve children, Hiram, Jane, William, Maria, James, Charlotte, Lorenzo, Benedict, Hasley, Sarah, Marion, and Adam"
Maybe the news didn't spread quickly enough? It seems suspicious, though, given how big a story it was. Maybe his parents were Tories?
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/benedict-accompl...
What? The name is now extremely popular again, thank to the actor from the Marvel movies (Dr. Strange) and TV's Sherlock Holmes.
I'm talking, of course, about Adolf Judas Cumberbatch.
He was also a brilliant general, instrumental in the defense of the South from Tarleton, leading to Yorktown.
He also played a role in New York, saving us from disaster.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanael_Greene
Had Benedict Arnold remained loyal, maybe he would have similar name recognition (which is not much).
It looks surprisingly cozy.
All of the generals of the American Revolution have monuments, including Arnold. But his is basically a blank sheet of stone with no name attached.
https://mtv-main-assets.mountvernon.org/files/callouts/sml_3...
"Patriot" and "traitor" are quite nuanced notions. At the time, a (US) patriot would of course have been considered a traitor (by Britain) because they were all British citizens.
Here we have a patriot who is a turncoat (ie a traitor).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Andr%C3%A9
If he had gone straight over to their side, that would have been fine. If he had stayed out of the army, that would have been fine, even passing messages. But he swore an oath. He wanted a big payoff from the Crown, and title, in exchange for handing over his command. He didn't get it.
What’s the difference between thousands a year and a dozen a day? Sounds to me like he did pretty well in terms of building up a following...
Benedict Arnold was the first celebrity general to regret his fame.