What if Benedict Arnold had not turned traitor?

[TMOT1955]

What if Benedict Arnold had not turned Traitor? After Saratoga he is given increasingly more authority, better commands, he becomes one of Washington's closest advisors.

Of course we may also have to do something about Arnold's wife Peggy Shippen, at least quench her extreme money hunger.

But let's say Benedict Arnold remains a loyal American, high ranking officer with increasing command responsibilities, close advisor to Washington.

How does this sound? After the war Arnold serves in The Confederation Congress, even serves on The Constitutional Convention.

What next? What if Benedict Arnold had not turned traitor and had served loyaly with The American Army through Yorktown and the end of The Revolutionary War?

 

[Shimbo]

You mean not seen the error of his ungrateful ways?

 

[Trotsky]

Benedict Arnold took things very personally. If he had been given more prominent commands and recognition after Saratoga than he might accept that as thanks for his efforts thus far, and this might dissipate the bitterness that would lead to treachery. Even more so if Horatio Gates was punished for some reason or another after that battle, as Arnold was sour at him.

And if Arnold remains in the field after recovering from his leg injury, he wouldn't end up in reconquered Philadelphia, and he would not have met Miss Shippen. No Miss Shippen, no money problem.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Avoid the leg injury and he could go far, perhaps even the White House.

Have him killed and he goes down as a national hero, and Gates may not get to lead the army to disaster at Camden.


Bear in mind that the British were always queasy about Arnold. This wasn't a repentant foe admitting the error of his ways, this was a traitor offering to betray his current cause in return for a massive and amazingly detailed bribe to be paid.

 

[Trotsky]

Have him killed and he goes down as a national hero, and Gates may not get to lead the army to disaster at Camden.

You think Arnold being killed at Saratoga would necessarily negate the chances of Gates getting more commands post-1777?

 

[scourge]

He would've been considered the greatest hero the republic ever had.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

If the martyr Arnold is given credit for winning at Saratoga despite Gates' best efforts, which is pretty much the historical record, then Gates lacks the prestige of the one great victory he stole credit for and is much less likely to be given command of all American forces for several states.

This doesn't mean another American commander will win at Camden or this TL's equivalent but a bloodier and more competent battle seems likely.

 

[SilverPhantom2]

Arnold was young, charismatic, and a hero (had he not turned traitor.) If he waited out the war and received a nice command in the south (perhaps Gates' post at Camden) I could definitely see him as the Federalist poster boy. Maybe even President after John Adams.

 

[Trotsky]

So if he succeeds John Adams, who presumably still serves 4 March 1797 to 4 March 1801, Arnold would have been a very short-term president, as he died due to complications from his leg injury in July 1801.

Unless of course he becomes even more popular and distinguished than George Washington, in which place why couldn't he become president in 1789?

 

[lothaw]

It's quite possible he might have lived longer if he was a hero. By the time he died IOTL he was in disgrace, the great villian of all times in his former home and distrusted and thought without honor in his new home.

Say what you will, I think will to live always has something to do with how the body deals with illness.

 

[Trotsky]

Oh I know his death that year from those complications weren't necessarily inevitable, but being head of state and of government for a young republic in the middle of turmoil can hardly be a stress-free job. It still isn't.

 

[SilverPhantom2]

Maybe he replaces Adams entirely, becoming second Pesident. Perhaps he wins in 1800, being more popular than Jefferson, dies sometime in 1802, and then his Vice President could set successional precedent. Or if it's Thomas Jefferson, that could get very interesting constitutionally.

 

[NomadicSky]

I don't think he was a traitor at all, at that time the US didn't exist people like Washinton were the real traitors to their country because at the time they betrayed the crown while he became a loyalist to his country.

Was Robert E. Lee a war hero? He would have been to the CSA but he was a traitor to the US only because the US crushed the CS.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

NomadicSky, traitor is the only plausible term, traitor to his cause, to his fellows and his troops, and only turning coat for money.

It's no wonder the British never made much use of him, even in the Napoleonic Wars, they could never forget the haggling of exactly how much money per soldier surrendered by him, how much for plans, for West Point, and so on.

 

[NomadicSky]

True.

He'd have done the same thing to the British for France so in that logic I guess that really is the only thing you can call him.

 

[Trotsky]

I don't think he was a traitor at all, at that time the US didn't exist people like Washinton were the real traitors to their country because at the time they betrayed the crown while he became a loyalist to his country.

Was Robert E. Lee a war hero? He would have been to the CSA but he was a traitor to the US only because the US crushed the CS.

But he was a traitor - he attempted to betray his fellow soldiers and officers and his country to the enemy. And the US did exist, even if the British didn't recognize it at that time. Also Lee was a war hero - to the South.

 

[Alratan]

What if Benedict Arnold had not turned Traitor? After Saratoga he is given increasingly more authority, better commands, he becomes one of Washington's closest advisors.

I think you mean, what if he hadn't repented of his treason?

I don't think that one can really dispute that most of the American revolutionaries were traitors (and those that weren't were often agents of foregin powers), and that only victory saved them from what would generally have been seen as a well deserved date with the gallows.

 

[Zyzzyva]

I don't think he was a traitor at all, at that time the US didn't exist people like Washinton were the real traitors to their country because at the time they betrayed the crown while he became a loyalist to his country.

Was Robert E. Lee a war hero? He would have been to the CSA but he was a traitor to the US only because the US crushed the CS.

The others have said it first, but: Washington and co were rebels. Arnold was a traitor. He took up with the USA and then sold them out, really, really basely. The man was a turncoat jerk, and frankly deserves the opprobrium the US has heaped on him.

I think you mean, what if he hadn't repented of his treason?

I don't think that one can really dispute that most of the American revolutionaries were traitors (and those that weren't were often agents of foregin powers), and that only victory saved them from what would generally have been seen as a well deserved date with the gallows.

No, that's not how it works. Most of the Congress would have been hung had the British won; but Arnold didn't "repent of his treason". He saw a chance to make a buck (or rather, a whole f***ing lot of bucks). He was not a nice, nor a moral, guy.

 

[Alratan]

The others have said it first, but: Washington and co were rebels. Arnold was a traitor. He took up with the USA and then sold them out, really, really basely. The man was a turncoat jerk, and frankly deserves the opprobrium the US has heaped on him.

No, that's not how it works. Most of the Congress would have been hung had the British won; but Arnold didn't "repent of his treason". He saw a chance to make a buck (or rather, a whole f***ing lot of bucks). He was not a nice, nor a moral, guy.

I agree that having to be paid a karge sum of money by your own government to do the right thing dosen't make you moral, but it puts you in a different category to those who take the coin of enemy foreign Powers to fight against it, in many cases, betraying their oaths. The latter are most certainly traitors. In the former case, you have to believe that the rebels had a legitimate claim to his loyalty. As the rebels were themselves traitors, they have no such claim, and thus he is not a traitor. Dishonest, corrupt, and an all round nasty piece of work, sure, but not a traitor.

 

[xxmagex]

I think Washington would have been faced with a choice of who to send to take Gates place after Camden- Arnold or Greene.

My thought is that Greene would still have been the choice. Arnold would have stayed with Washington outside of New York. Washington could have brought Arnold with him to Yorktown or left him in charge of the forces outside New York.

After the war, I would suspect that Arnold would become active in politics, probably in the Federalist party. How far he would have gone, I'm not sure. Does anyone out there know about the relationship between Alexander Hamilton and Arnold? That might have been a factor in Arnold's post Revolutionary War career.