Hmmmmmm

Hmmmmmm (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Termyn8or -> Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 2:00:35 AM)
Appartently this is the day of the year on which Benedict Arnold committed treason. T^T

Awareness -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 3:41:55 AM)
Y'know, I've heard it said that they give completely mental nutbars internet access because it keeps them off the streets.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 3:41:59 AM)
No, that was on April 20 or 21, depending on what source you go by.

tazzygirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 3:56:41 AM)
I think he is right, Heather. Plot exposed Arnold and André finally met on September 21 at Joshua Hett Smith's house. On the morning of September 22, James Livingston, the colonel in charge of the outpost at Verplanck's Point, fired on HMS Vulture, the ship that was intended to carry André back to New York. This action did sufficient damage that she was retreated downriver, forcing André to return to New York overland. Arnold wrote out passes for André so that he would be able to pass through the lines, and also gave him plans for West Point.[82] On Saturday, September 23, André was captured, near Tarrytown, by three Westchester patriots named John Paulding, Isaac Van Wart and David Williams;[83] the papers exposing the plot to capture West Point were found and sent to Washington, and Arnold's treachery came to light after Washington examined them.[84] Meanwhile, André convinced the unsuspecting commanding officer to whom he was delivered, Colonel John Jameson, to send him back to Arnold at West Point. However, Major Benjamin Tallmadge, a member of Washington's secret service, insisted Jameson order the prisoner intercepted and brought back. Jameson reluctantly recalled the lieutenant delivering André into Arnold's custody, but then sent the same lieutenant as a messenger to notify Arnold of André's arrest.[85] Arnold learned of André's capture the following morning, September 24, when he received Jameson's message that André was in his custody and that the papers André was carrying had been sent to General Washington. Arnold received Jameson's letter while waiting for Washington, with whom he had planned to have breakfast.[86] He made all haste to the shore and ordered bargemen to row him downriver to where the Vulture was anchored, which then took him to New York.[87] From the ship Arnold wrote a letter to Washington,[88] requesting that Peggy be given safe passage to her family in Philadelphia, a request Washington granted.[89] When presented with evidence of Arnold's betrayal, it is reported that Washington was calm. He did, however, investigate the extent of the betrayal, and suggested in negotiations with General Clinton over the fate of Major André that he was willing to exchange André for Arnold. This suggestion Clinton refused; after a military tribunal, André was hanged at Tappan, New York on October 2. Washington also infiltrated men into New York in an attempt to kidnap Arnold; this plan, which very nearly succeeded, failed when Arnold changed living quarters prior to sailing for Virginia in December.[90] Today is the day Arnold met with the man who ultimately led to his own downfall and exposure of his actions in the plot.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 6:23:47 AM)
quote: I think he is right, Heather. No he's not. Arnold committed treason in April 1775 when he took up arms against the King. That was treason. What you call treason was just the opposite, he was returning to the side of the lawful government, he abandoned a rebellion, certainly not an act of treason. trea·son [tree-zuhn] noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. Furthermore, the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, 2 years after those events, so nobody could have committed treason against the U.S. in 1779, it didn't exist at that time. And technically it didn't legally exist until 1783, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, up until then it was still a group of colonies in rebellion against their lawful sovereign. And even more so, he was acquitted of all but two charges: firstly, of granting a pass in which some due forms were overlooked, and, secondly, of using some public wagons, that weren't in use at the time, for saving private property in danger from the enemy. You would be justified in calling him a turncoat, but not a traitor in the sense you are trying to apply it. What he did in 1178/9 was not treason. Those pesky facts again, eh?

Aylee -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 8:54:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: I think he is right, Heather. No he's not. Arnold committed treason in April 1775 when he took up arms against the King. That was treason. What you call treason was just the opposite, he was returning to the side of the lawful government, he abandoned a rebellion, certainly not an act of treason. trea·son [tree-zuhn] "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington (1600)

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 2:00:21 PM)
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/benedict-arnold-commits-treason I guess the History channel is wrong, just like Tazzy.

Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 2:21:53 PM)
FR Hmmmmmm. It actually looks like I am the only one wrong :-) Technically, it was definitely wrong to use the term "treason". Now first of all don't tell the sheeple and WHATEVER YOU DO, don't get RealO in here becasue then we will have true mayhem. Can you imagine it ? Some fucking scanned parchment written in Greek proclaiming that he worked for the Albanians or something. (if Albania existed at the time, and NO, I am not going to go look it up because I don't care) T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 2:27:40 PM)
"Y'know, I've heard it said that they give completely mental nutbars internet access because it keeps them off the streets." Seems I have heard that somewwhere as well. Keep listening to the voices, we would hate to lose you. T^T

LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 3:10:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/benedict-arnold-commits-treason I guess the History channel is wrong, just like Tazzy. They also got the year the war ended wrong: "He later became a successful trader and joined the Continental Army when the Revolutionary War broke out between Great Britain and its 13 American colonies in 1775. When the war ended in 1883, the colonies had won their independence from Britain and formed a new nation, the United States." According to them we fought the British for 108 years. I'll bet some of those folks were awfully tired by the end. [8\|]

KMsAngel -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 6:26:26 PM)
historybooks (and docu's) are written by the victors. since the US won that particular war, they get to call Arnold a traitor if it pleases them. whether Arnold considered himself a traitor, or indeed the UK, is not pertinent, now is it? (tongue firmly in cheek)

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 7:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LinnaeaBorealis quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/benedict-arnold-commits-treason I guess the History channel is wrong, just like Tazzy. They also got the year the war ended wrong: "He later became a successful trader and joined the Continental Army when the Revolutionary War broke out between Great Britain and its 13 American colonies in 1775. When the war ended in 1883, the colonies had won their independence from Britain and formed a new nation, the United States." According to them we fought the British for 108 years. I'll bet some of those folks were awfully tired by the end. Apparently so, eh?

tazzygirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 7:18:36 PM)
quote: You would be justified in calling him a turncoat, but not a traitor in the sense you are trying to apply it. What he did in 1178/9 was not treason. 1178/9? The court martial you are referring too... The court martial to consider the charges against Arnold began meeting on June 1, 1779, but was delayed until December 1779 by General Clinton's capture of Stony Point, New York, throwing the army into a flurry of activity to react.[67] Although a number of members of the panel of judges were ill-disposed to Arnold over actions and disputes earlier in the war, Arnold was cleared of all but two minor charges on January 26, 1780.[68] Arnold worked over the next few months to publicize this fact; however, in early April, just one week after Washington congratulated Arnold on the May 19 birth of his son, Edward Shippen Arnold, Washington published a formal rebuke of Arnold's behavior.[69] The events I spoke of occurred in Sept of 1780. British Army service Main article: Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1781 The British gave Arnold a brigadier general's commission with an annual income of several hundred pounds, but only paid him £6,315 plus an annual pension of £360 because his plot failed.[4] In December 1780, under orders from Clinton, Arnold led a force of 1,600 troops into Virginia, where he captured Richmond by surprise and then went on a rampage through Virginia, destroying supply houses, foundries, and mills.[ On September 21, 1780, American General Benedict Arnold met with British Major John Andre to plot the transfer of West Point, a key strategic post in New York, to British control. The meeting was a culmination of months of secret negotiations between General Arnold and the British, and it marked perhaps the most famous act of treason ever committed by an American military officer. http://americanfounding.blogspot.com/2009/09/treason-of-benedict-arnold.html Simplistic view... but very appropriate. Turncoat Major General Arnold was probably the best field commander on either side in the Revolution. His invasion of Canada, compared by contemporaries to Hannibal's crossing the Alps, had nearly succeeded in making that province the fourteenth state. Skillful and bold, he had won the Battle of Saratoga, reversing the Americans' losing streak and securing French assistance for Ambassador Benjamin Franklin. He also sustained a severe leg wound that, for a time, sidelined him to garrison duty, and gave him more time to brood on the under-appreciation of his brilliance. But this talented American, so trusted by Washington that the British thought him incorruptible, had attempted to betray his country by surrendering West Point, the most strategic fort on New York's Hudson River. He had persuaded Washington to give him the command in 1780, and had plotted its fall in a dozen letters exchanged with Major John André, chief of British intelligence. For his treason, Arnold wanted money and a British major general's commission. Arnold and André met September 21 near West Point to hammer out details. André could not, when they had done, get back to British-occupied New York by ship as planned. He traded his uniform for civilian garb, hid incriminating papers in his boot, and set off on horseback through American lines. Militiamen intent on robbery waylaid and searched him, and discovered the documents. The men turned him over to the nearest officer, who notified Arnold of the capture of a spy. http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer01/benedictarnold.cfm

Aylee -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 7:37:23 PM)
Well, Quisling had not been born yet.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 8:17:12 PM)
quote: The events I spoke of occurred in Sept of 1780. At which point the U.S. did not exist either, so still no treason. He couldn't betray "his country" because that country didn't exist. You can post whatever you want to, but unless it shows that the Treaty of Paris was signed before the date that the alleged treason occurred it isn't relevant and what I said stands: treason wasn't possible. He did commit treason in 1775 against the King, but never against the U.S., because he switched sides while the revolution was still under way, i.e. before the U.S existed.

Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 8:24:51 PM)
Sorta FR Quisling was not only a citizen of Norway, he was an elite. Interestingly my opinion is as abrasive as any other when it comes to Quisling. Back in the day to cooperate with enemies in that way was considered betrayal of the highest magnitude, and I would opine rightly so. However in the Orwellian climate of today in the minds of the sheeple, those who go along with things because it's easier, who accept the abridgement of rights for supposed security, those who will comply with almost any "law" no matter how regugnant to the Constitution or the sensibilities of free Men, I think Quisling would be seen as one who saved some lives in that country during the occupation. I think it's a goddamn shame actually, but if certain people really familiarized themselves with the actions of Vidkun Quisling, they might find themselves in support of what he did. That of course adds to the sense of hopelessness I have for the future of free people on this planet. That is, I see no future. I am not saying that life will end, but free life will. In fact it already has. Nobody wants freedom. You saw me tear into 808 over the child support issue. You didn't see that on the healthcare issue did you ? There is a good reason for that. You see I will support, for now, the idea of socialised medicine but that's only because the takers have taken so fucking much that people cannot afford care. If we had the fucking prosperity we should have we would pay our own doctor bills, just like people used to do when I was a kid. It's hard to believe I'm that fucking old ain't it ? Nary a gray hair and all my teeth, how dare I ? T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 8:35:29 PM)
"You can post whatever you want to, but unless it shows that the Treaty of Paris was signed before the date that the alleged treason occurred it isn't relevant and what I said stands: treason wasn't possible. " I'm not completely disagreeing with you but I cannot agree. By your logic the existence of a nation is dependent upon it's recognition as such by a foriegn entity. I dispute that in toto, not because of current events, but more on principle. Going by that standard, that would mean that China was not a nation until we discovered it. Of course a place that vast would be automatically recognized but last I checked there is no minimum size for recognition as a nation. What I am stating is that while you may be factually correct, that assertion depends somewhat on an Anglocentric view. Or somethingcentric. That is a very common viewpoint on this planet and it's blows people's minds when they give it up. But when something blows up it expands. Of course then there is the question of whether country and nation are totally synonymous, are they ? T^T

tazzygirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 9:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: The events I spoke of occurred in Sept of 1780. At which point the U.S. did not exist either, so still no treason. He couldn't betray "his country" because that country didn't exist. You can post whatever you want to, but unless it shows that the Treaty of Paris was signed before the date that the alleged treason occurred it isn't relevant and what I said stands: treason wasn't possible. He did commit treason in 1775 against the King, but never against the U.S., because he switched sides while the revolution was still under way, i.e. before the U.S existed. The US didnt exist? By whose standards? The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. Its declared the US independence from Britian. It established an army, of which Arnold was a part of, and which Washington led. The Articles of Confederation were signed in 1777. The Treaty of Paris was a formal document signed 1783. But, by 1777. the US had an army, a Congress, a formal Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that legally established the United States of America as a nation and served as its first constitution.[1] It was drafted by the Continental Congress in 1776-77, went into use in 1777 and was formally ratified by all 13 states in 1781. The Articles gave legitimacy to the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian claims. Nevertheless, the confederation type of national government proved to be too weak and in 1789 it was replaced with a federal government with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. By the time Arnold committed his act... it was treason. if you are insisting that the US had to wait for formal recognition from other countries to be declared its own country....it doesnt work that way. Btw, he did sign an oath... Arnold's seniority was subsequently restored, but he was already too angry to forgive Congress, and never would. He was now also crippled, a blow to his pride after being such an actively athletic man. He spent the winter of 1777-1778 with the army at Valley Forge. On May 30th, 1778, Benedict Arnold signed the Oath of Allegiance to his country. It was signed at Artillery Park in Valley Forge and witnessed by Henry Knox. After the evacuation of the British in Philadelphia, Washington appointed him commandant of the city. http://www.ushistory.org/ValleyForge/served/arnold.html All those things combined certainly point to his acts as being ones of treason.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 10:37:10 PM)
quote: The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that legally established the United States of America as a nation and served as its first constitution.[1] It was drafted by the Continental Congress in 1776-77, went into use in 1777 and was formally ratified by all 13 states in 1781. I already mentioned that in my first post, there really was no point reposting it. Until the treaty, the 13 colonies were just that 13 colonies rebelling against the crown. It was the treaty which recognized the claim made in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the treaty which legally established the U.S. as an independent country. It's a matter of the details and legal niceties, and like I said, unless you can prove the treaty was in effect at the time in question it by definition cannot be treason. Have a good night.

tazzygirl -> RE: Hmmmmmm (9/21/2011 10:47:35 PM)
And you are wrong. Look up the definition of treason. trea·son [tree-zuhn] Show IPA noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. NOUN: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. A betrayal of trust or confidence. He took an oath of allegiance. Sweet dreams!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875