Skip to main content

Benedict Arnold and Donald Trump

 


Benedict Arnold sought to turn over the plans to West Point to the British during America's War for Independence. 

Although that plan didn't work out, he did escape to redcoat lines and became an officer in their ranks for the remainder of the war. 

Soon after Cornwallis' surrender, Arnold took a ship eastward to the Mother Country. He died there twenty years later. But it is worth noting that his death came after a period as a social pariah. The Whigs despised him and even the Tories thought it best to keep their distance.

Keep an eye on flights to Mother Russia. I think a Floridian golfer of orange hue may have the pilot of his private jet file a flight plan for Moscow soon.   

The news of such a flight would be ... clarifying. And, although those who would prefer to see him wearing an orange jmpsuit will be disappointed, they may find cheering the thought that pariah-hood awaits him there. 

Comments

  1. Christopher, that's a very interesting thought; I've never seen it before. But why was Arnold despised in England, and why do you think that Trump would be despised in Russia? Another question would be whether Trump could get his assets out of the U.S., and what percentage of them he'd have to pay to Putin. He'd presumably have to pay before the trip, before the U.S. thought to freeze his assets.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another question: If Jack Smith reads your blog, then, after he has Trump arrested, will he ask the judge to deny bail because Trump is a flight risk?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought I had entered an answer to this earlier this morning, but it appears it didn't go through. I'll try again. Arnold was despised in England for roughly the reason rats are despised everywhere, even if one disapproves of the cause the rat originally served. Of course there were many Whigs who more-or-less openly approved of the cause of the revolutionaries, a philosophically diverse group ranging from Paine to Burke. But even among those who had no such sympathy, Arnold was treated like someone who had been won away from a bad cause by filthy lucre, so that both the stench of the bad cause AND the stench of the squealing still hung around him.

    Consider Cornwallis' very different fate. After his surrender at Yorktown, Cornwallis ended up in India. The British East India Co was being transformed into an official colonial govt rather than a trading concern. It was also winning new territory. Cornwallis became part of this process, and it redeemed his reputation. At one point Arnold, in England, sought to enlist in the East India Co., and he was turned down. One official there assured him that he (the official) thought Arnold's motives in the American war "had been pure," but too many others didn't agree.

    Jack Smith is a veteran of the war crimes tribunal and I doubt he cares for advice from me on such matters. But if he is listening, "Hi."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak