Blog powered by Typepad

« Did ya ever clean up the mess on that dress, Mr. President? | Main | 'MDA' really must be careful over the company she keeps »

Thursday, 07 June 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Many of us over here had been taught that old Benedict had way too much ego to be contained in one man. This kind of betrayal seems pretty common in war time with mile high egos in the mix. Ad money to the mix and human nature is what it is.

given the rebels killed and terrorised the majority loyalist population I'm ok with Arnold doing the dirty.

David

It is said that Arnold was the best Field general in both armies.

I understand that Arnold be came infatuated with an ambitious young pretty lady of a prosperous loyalist family.

The answer to the question posed in your title is "Yes." Embrace the power of "and".

Without too much controversy one could argue that the Revolution was another round in a series of civil wars; i.e. York -v- Lancaster. Parliament -v- Charles 1. Stuarts -v- Hanover [1715 & 1745], U.S Revolution [Loyalists -v- Royalists].

Whichever way you look at it Benedict was a turncoat.

Should've equalised the tax regime, shifted the Houses of Parliament to the east coast, one state one MP, and back-flushed the Yankee-doodle's constitution into our own.

By George and all the Saints: Boney, the Kaiser, Adolf and the spawn of Marx wouldn't have exited the birthing room.

SoD

'Thud', I trust you are not picking a gunfight at the OK corral!
I like your blog, by the way.

The comments to this entry are closed.