Uh, Pat, look to home.

SouthernFemaleLawyer ran a letter to Pat Robertson from the Devil which made this point:

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing.

I have to say after reading that, couldn’t Robertson be making a mistake. Shouldn't Pat look a little closer to home to find the country that made a pact with the Devil for its Independence. Isn't there a possibility that country is the US. Wouldn’t that explain how this country can be so >wealthy, yet so screwed up? Ever see Bedazzled (the Original Peter Cook and Dudley Moore version, not the later remake)? The devil gives you riches and what else you want, but there is usually a catch.

The last scene in the convent is a scream.

As OSO said at The Saturday Afternoon Post, "Good point. No way a bunch of black slaves could have outfought a modern European army."

You've got to admit this line of reasoning has a point, couldn't a country make a pact with the devil so it could defeat a much more powerful force. But, I'm talking about the US defeating Great Britain during the war of independence.

Britain was a much more powerful army and was doing a pretty good job of kicking colonial arse. The US did make a pact with the French that some, such as Benedict Arnold, might classify as a pact with the devil. But what about a real pact with the devil?

Wouldn't that explain a lot about the US's politics?

More musing on Benedict Arnold

I have to admit a fascination with Benedict Arnold since his efforts helped to push forward the agenda he later described as "sinister views at the expence of the public interest". Arnold's military victories against the British, in particular the victory at Saratoga, helped to secure the French aid he so despised. It also raises the question of how many citizens were aware of the machinations that went on during the War for Independence? I have often mentioned French Involvement in this war as a contrast to the fighting farmer militiaman one is given to believe fought the war.

How many were "duped" into believing that the War for Independence was beneficial or necessary? How many would have preferred Union to independence yet remained silent? what would have been the outcome had Arnold supported Union and the Tory cause?

Arnold mentions in his letter that "we raised arms against a brother". I am assuming that he means England,but the War for Independence was a civil war. Are the Loyalists the people Arnold refers to as "the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion"? What if Arnold has cast his lot with those who argued for restraint in dealing with their grievances with the motherland?

There is a part of me who sees two possible methods of defeating the rebels: military and civil. The civil method would have been to find those who were inclined toward the motherland and keep them informed of the overatures by people such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to the French. Would John Adams, who defended Captain Preston and his men, be inclined to a slow and reasoned approach with the motherland that would have sustained Union?

To be quite honest, when I see what has happened in this country, I am sure that many who supported Independence would regret that action. Benedict Arnold demonstrates that I don't need to travel far into the future to see evidence of this. As George Washington said about Shays' Rebellion:

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious."

I also find it interesting that another supporter of Independence, Samuel Chase, said: “our republican Constitution will sink to Mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments”. This statement is even more interesting in light of the "tea party" movement. Unfortunately (or fortunately), most colonials were not supportive of the original Tea Party's wanton destruction of property.

It seems that people can be affected by events even if they hope to remain neutral. Unfortunately, you've got to fuck up royally to admit you made a mistake after wasting lives in a war.

Benedict Arnold--A true Patriot

I have to admit a love for alternative history: the big what if? Stuff like Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove's The Two Georges, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga, and Redcoats' Revenge: An Alternate History of the War of 1812. A part of this comes from my conviction that the founders would not have fought the war for American Independence if they saw the ultimate outcome, especially in terms of how the United States has turned out. One can read the grievances in the Declaration of Independence and find that the Tories were correct when they said they would "rather be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants less than a mile away" since many of those grievances still exist.

But does one even need to go beyond the period of the War for American Independence to find proof of my conviction? Benedict Arnold was a strong believer in the Independence movement: whhich included spending his own money toward that effort. His numerous military victories for the Independence movement have been discounted based upon his "treason". Likewise, the reasons for his "treason" have been clouded over and covered with selfish reasons, although I have heard that one reason was that he was opposed to the Alliance with France. Other reasons are that he was disapppointed with Congress.

I have found the text of a letter he wrote to the American Public about his "treason" and it appears to confirm my opinion:

A very few words, however, shall suffice upon a subject so personal; for to the thousands who suffer under the tyranny of the usurpers in the revolted provinces, as well as to the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion, this instance of my conduct can want no vindication; and as to the class of men who are criminally protracting the war from sinister views at the expence of the public interest, I prefer their enmity to their applause. I am, therefore, only concerned in this address, to explain, myself to such of my countrymen, as want abilities, or opportunities, to detect the artifices by which they are duped...

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.

Some may think I continued in the struggle of these unhappy days too long, and others that I quitted it too soon-- To the first I reply, that I did not see with their eyes, nor perhaps had so favourable a situation to look from, and that to our common master I am willing to stand or fall. In behalf of the candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly--in the bands I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their own safety before it is too late; and with respect to that herd of censurers, whose enmity to me originates in their hatred to the principles by which I am now led to devote my life to the re-union of the British empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured, that concious of the rectitude of my intentions; I shall treat their malice and calumnies with contempt and neglect.

The problem with the War for American Independence is that it was a civil war, but it needed a pretense of righteousness to cover the fact that it was a dirty war: Us v. them. But many of "them" were also colonials (e.g., Tenche Coxe)! Unfortunately, Arnold, like another of my pantheon: Banastre Tarleton, were on the losing side and make lovely bogeymen and scapegoats in the American Myth factory which posits that ordinary people rose up to fight a foreign enemy. Never mind that the war was between three (or more) well-trained armies and Arnold was able to live out his days and died in London. The picture at the top of this piece comes from the house where he lived out his days in peace.

I would love to attribute Arnold's actions to prescience since I find it very interesting how he confirms my belief that those who supported Independence would be tremendously disappointed with how this country has turned out. If hindsight is 20-20, how many supporters of Independence would have supported insurrection over reason as the answer to their woes? Or to again quote Samuel Adams:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

And ask doesn't the precedent of rebellion sanction that as a method of change: whether against a king or a republic? Was that a precedent that should be kept or does that lead to another form of tyranny?