The last blog explained how John Tyler became known as the Traitor President. Despite that label (and despite the rankings of leftist historians), Tyler was a pretty damn good President.
Ask any American with an elementary level knowledge of history who they think of when they hear the word TRAITOR, one name will dominate the results. Benedict Arnold. But was he really an evil, scheming, irredeemable traitor? Not quite.
This is not intended as a defense or an apology for Arnold. Make no mistake, he was a traitor. A vile one as he turned on friends and men who followed him into battle. This will instead be a brief attempt to provide some perspective. Arnold has been described often (simplistic description) as motivated by greed. Yes, somewhat. But mostly no.
He negotiated and accepted a large sum of money from the British. However, what brought him to that point? All evidence points to Arnold accepting the money because he decided to turn on the Continental Army. He did not turn because of money though. It was a case of might as well take the money if you're going to doit anyway. So why?
Arnold had fought false accusations of corruption and stealing by the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council. This smear campaign appeared to simply be due to a personality conflict (Arnold was by all accounts egotistical, haughty, and temperamental). He was a dick. This experience already had Arnold on edge with politics in the Colonies.
Arnold also felt that he was passed up for promotion for others much less qualified after serving heroically in battle. By all accounts, he was justified in this feeling. Arnold was a highly regarded. He first joined the fighting outside of Boston early on where he was noted for his "intelligence and bravery" in battle. In 1775, he led the vital capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Despite these and other notable successes, Arnold only made it to Major General while he watched other less qualified and less accomplished men bypass him. Being a dick does have consequences, but should it in a meritocracy?
To further blacken Arnold's foul demeanor, he was again charged with corruption by some in the upper political/military hierarchy. He was acquitted but still had to deal with the inquiries and investigations into his financing. It is not known when exactly he decided to switch sides, but it is easy to see in hindsight that it was brewing within him. While in command of West Point, it was discovered that Arnold had plotted to surrender the important fort to the British. Arnold fled to the British side and fought with them for the remainder of the war.
And he deserves his ignominious place in history. As a brigadier general in the British Army, Arnold commanded over forces that burned towns to the ground and brutally killed surrendering forces.
Fuck him. There is no excuse for his actions. However, the record should be set straight that greed was not his motivation to choose treason and a traitorous path.
So what in the hell are the motives of McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, Romney, and the rest of today's traitors? Whereas Benedict Arnold had misguided reasons, what other than greed motivates today's traitors?
Arnold earned his label as America's treacherous traitor. However, he should never again be used as the poster boy for treason. The current and recent past politicians are far more dastardly and despicable in their selling out of America than the former Revolutionary hero gone bad.
I pray they meet severe justice in this life. I'm confident they will in the next one.
Ask any American with an elementary level knowledge of history who they think of when they hear the word TRAITOR, one name will dominate the results. Benedict Arnold. But was he really an evil, scheming, irredeemable traitor? Not quite.
This is not intended as a defense or an apology for Arnold. Make no mistake, he was a traitor. A vile one as he turned on friends and men who followed him into battle. This will instead be a brief attempt to provide some perspective. Arnold has been described often (simplistic description) as motivated by greed. Yes, somewhat. But mostly no.
He negotiated and accepted a large sum of money from the British. However, what brought him to that point? All evidence points to Arnold accepting the money because he decided to turn on the Continental Army. He did not turn because of money though. It was a case of might as well take the money if you're going to doit anyway. So why?
Arnold had fought false accusations of corruption and stealing by the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council. This smear campaign appeared to simply be due to a personality conflict (Arnold was by all accounts egotistical, haughty, and temperamental). He was a dick. This experience already had Arnold on edge with politics in the Colonies.
Arnold also felt that he was passed up for promotion for others much less qualified after serving heroically in battle. By all accounts, he was justified in this feeling. Arnold was a highly regarded. He first joined the fighting outside of Boston early on where he was noted for his "intelligence and bravery" in battle. In 1775, he led the vital capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Despite these and other notable successes, Arnold only made it to Major General while he watched other less qualified and less accomplished men bypass him. Being a dick does have consequences, but should it in a meritocracy?
To further blacken Arnold's foul demeanor, he was again charged with corruption by some in the upper political/military hierarchy. He was acquitted but still had to deal with the inquiries and investigations into his financing. It is not known when exactly he decided to switch sides, but it is easy to see in hindsight that it was brewing within him. While in command of West Point, it was discovered that Arnold had plotted to surrender the important fort to the British. Arnold fled to the British side and fought with them for the remainder of the war.
And he deserves his ignominious place in history. As a brigadier general in the British Army, Arnold commanded over forces that burned towns to the ground and brutally killed surrendering forces.
Fuck him. There is no excuse for his actions. However, the record should be set straight that greed was not his motivation to choose treason and a traitorous path.
So what in the hell are the motives of McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, Romney, and the rest of today's traitors? Whereas Benedict Arnold had misguided reasons, what other than greed motivates today's traitors?
Arnold earned his label as America's treacherous traitor. However, he should never again be used as the poster boy for treason. The current and recent past politicians are far more dastardly and despicable in their selling out of America than the former Revolutionary hero gone bad.
I pray they meet severe justice in this life. I'm confident they will in the next one.
