Charles Lee: A Lesson in Leadership-Do Not be Naive With Trust

In my studies on Founding Fathers, I have come to a startling revelation: American Revolutionary General (2nd in Command to General George Washington) was a spy. How did I come to this extraordinary conclusion ? While reading about the provincial government set up in South Carolina as described in Christopher Gadsden and the American Revolution by E. Stanley Godbold, Jr. and Robert H. Woody (a well researched book that took over 40 years to make) and in conjunction with my studies of Founding Fathers and the American Revolution over the last 8 years, I was able to piece together the bizarre and unexplainable actions of General Charles Lee.  George Washington sent Charles Lee to defend the Americans at Charleston as the British headed south. Rather than properly prepare, Lee built an unsatisfactory bridge from Fort Sullivan connecting to the mainland South Carolina that South Carolina officer William Moultrie determined would be more beneficial to the British than the Americans (it was later refortified and built properly by patriot Christopher Gadsden). When the British arrived, Lee determined that a retreat would be in order (allowing the British to take over the American South). Lee's order was overriden by South Carolina's provincial government's President Rutledge. Thanks to the fierceness of William Moultrie, the Americans were able to fend off the British despite the false credit going to Charles Lee.  Lee's actions clearly showed he did not have the American's best interest at heart.  While still in the South, he was "captured" by British officer Banastre Tarleton, known to be the fiercest British officer who spared no mercy. Yet, Lee was kept in ideal conditions (luxurious compared to other prisoners of war), fed like a king, and later released. The proof of his complicity lies herein.  It was during this "prisoner of war" period it was later revealed in 1857 among the private papers of British General William Howe, the military plans Charles Lee had drafted to turn over the American military in defeat to the British. 

There were other telltale signs of a duplicitous heart. In the famous Battle of Monmouth, George Washington sent Lee to capture the British as they planned on leaving Philadelphia to embark for New York. Rather than follow a golden opportunity to capture the British, he led the Americans on a retreat. The Marquis de Lafayette, one of George Washington's most trusted and brilliant military commanders, reported the treacherous behavior directly to Washington. Washington, overwhelmed with anger,  rode to the front lines of Monmouth stopping the retreat. Due to this, General Lee was court martialed. Prior to this, Washington had renamed Fort Constitution  "Fort Lee". Lee managed to give up this fort to the British as well.  At Valley Forge, Washington required all his officers to give an oath of loyalty. Lee refused to do so, hiding his duplicity under a ruse that he held the Prince of Wales in esteem, although not King George.  Even to death, the signs of Lee's disloyalty were evident. He made a request not to be buried in an an American churchyard because "I have kept up such bad company when living, that I do not choose to continue it when dead." Despite this, he is still buried today at the cemetery of Christ Church in Philadelphia. 

Yet schoolchildren to this day study General Charles Lee as a patriotic figure who served alongside General George Washington, while suspecting the laudable patriot Aaron Burr of disloyalty (which recent scholarship on the treason trial once again brings to light the preposterous nature of such a charge for such a proven military hero and statesman). What would George Washington had done if had he been alive to see the traitorous Lee papers discovered  among British General William Howe's effects 95 years later ? Undoubtedly he would have wanted to see a trial and hanging as he wished for Benedict Arnold. Washington was even responsible for a failed attempt at capturing Benedict Arnold to prove a lethal point to possible defectors during the Revolution. So how did this happen ? It was only natural that Washington wanted on his staff - experienced, battle proven military leaders. Charles Lee's resume and experience fit that bill. A resume; however, does not reveal one's heart. Washington served his country insisting on no pay, Lee refused to serve without compensation and managed to get the nearly bankrupt Continental Congress to agree to pay him  $30,000.00. The lesson  of General Charles Lee lies herein,  it is unwise to trust someone based merely on their resume, experience or curriculum vitae. Washington proved that  blindly and naively trusting  a military pedigree does not ensure one's loyalty and good intentions. A person's  heart, values and morals are just as important to their predicted behavior (in this case leadership) as one's qualifications.  One thing is for certain, Washington did not suspect Lee's deception. He even attended Lee's funeral in Philadelphia in 1782. Washington's men of big heart did not suspect Lee of the same good intentions however. Military officer John Laurens,

aid de camp to Washington, injured Lee in a duel, with Alexander Hamilton preventing Laurens from killing him. General "Mad" Anthony Wayne, one of Washington's most courageous officers, also challenged Lee to a duel. 

As the nation ages, and more historical research and documentation comes to light, I do hope that we, as a nation, can put the proper perspective on Charles Lee. Those who command respect must do so deservedly and with truth.  Charles Lee's story is not one our history books properly report (particularly in light of the 1857 discovered spy papers).  Actions do speak louder than words,  and deception speaks the most about one's actions. The wisdom in all of this is, never naively trust. Even the greatest leaders are guilty of this. Lucky for America, we won the revolution in spite of Charles Lee. 

Benedict Arnold- from the Perspective of the Battle of Quebec

Just finished reading Benedict Arnold in the Company of Heroes by Arthur S. Lefkowitz. It was an excellent scholarly work on the lives of the men who went on the ill fated attempt to capture Quebec at the beginning of the American Revolution to prevent the Canadians from joining with the British in fighting the Americans. The turmoil and travails Benedict's men faced on this march to overtake Quebec reads like the challenges Lewis and Clark faced in Undaunted Courage, yet on a grander scale as more men were involved. It is no wonder that these men had to be chosen as the top men of their regiments to participate. It also becomes no wonder that these top men after being released as prisoners of war in Quebec, rose to the cream of the crop upon their return in joining the Continental Army. They were tough, reliable and passionate, all the traits their soldiers needed  to see in their officers' leadership. No doubt,  Benedict Arnold was a courageous and fearless soldier and leader. His main problem was that he possessed a depravity of morals. He was accused of being a thief his whole life. When he was military governor of Pennsylvania he was accused of stealing from the people and merchants to set up his own merchant business aggrandizing himself in the process, making him wealthy. He was accused of the same when as a British officer (after he became a traitor) he was sent to Virginia. These accusations of theft started early in his career and trailed him to his dying days. After the war, he left London and established a business in Canada. His business partner accused him of theft and he was run out of town and fled back to London. For two years and before his wife Peggy Shippen and children joined him from London, he took on a mistress and begat a child while living in Canada. A study of his life would show that central to his character was his inability to avoid theft and profiting at the expense of others. His narcissistic ego and personality caused many rifts with fellow military leaders and politicians that had to deal with him.  In conclusion, Benedict Arnold is a good life lesson in learning that you should not give power to the morally deprived. Had George Washington, who recognized Arnold's military prowess, listened to his fellow Continental Congressmens' well founded suspicions and concerns, Arnold would have never reached the powerful position he did in the American Army jeopardizing the cause. Bottom line, a person's character is far more important an indicator of leadership than just their accomplishments.

Paul Revere

Just finished reading Esther Forbe's Paul Revere and the World He Lived In, originally published in 1942. What a fantastic read ! Prior to reading this book, I had the view of Paul Revere most Americans have- the "midnight ride", Son of Liberty, silversmith... All those associations just barely scrape the surface of what a noble and enterprising man he was.

Where there was a need, Paul was the man. When our patriot army needed gunpowder, he figured out how to make it and then produced it. When his friends needed dentures, he creatively figured out how to wire some up ! That is how they were able to identify the patriot John Warren's body at the battle of Bunker Hill. He was in the thick of it, organizing and motivating his fellow mechanics and craftsmen into action from the famous Tea Party (which he swore an oath never to reveal, nor did he) to his famous midnight ride. He manned Castle Hill to protect Boston from attack during the Revolution. After independence, the country needed its own bell maker. He figured out how to do that and he and his son produced almost 400 bells, one weighing over 1,000 pounds. Some are still in existence today (one in Boston) and are rung.  Our navy was not created until 1795. One of the biggest issues in manufacturing ships was the copper sheets that lined the boats. He figured out how to do this and is responsible for not only many of the bolts and hardware on our early ships but the all important copper sheathing.

Paul was also a generous and open hearted soul. He loaned money to many, including the famous Deborah Sampson who fought in the Revolution disguised as a man (over a hundred different loans). In the very puritanial town of Boston, he gave shelter to needy lady who had come into town pregnant with another man's baby. In a time where care for the mentally ill was very scant, he financially paid for his son in law's upkeep with a private physician, when his own family would not contribute, until Paul passed away.

His passion never died. He was 80 when his signature was the first on a list of local townsmen stepping up to the plate to provide for Boston's needs and protections in the War of 1812.

A huge family man, Paul had 16 children. He cared for his mother, offering her a place in his home, until she died. When he passed, he had amassed a respectable fortune and passed it to his family as well as his silversmith business which went on to later employ 10, 000 workers. To this day, Reverware still exists. Many of his fine pieces are displayed as art in museums across the country, a testament to his craftsmanship.

What Paul Revere teaches us is that it does not take money or a well bred lineage to succeed but rather hard work, an entereprising spirit, a kind heart towards others and passion. He is truly the epitome of a "good citizen".  Hats off to Paul Revere. It wasn't the ride that made the man, it was the man who made the ride and then some. Thank you Paul for being the classic hero American schoolchildren will also look up to and idolize.  

Ben Franklin life lesson: How Humiliation turned a Diplomat into an Incendiary

"When you really listen to another person from their point of view, and reflect back to them that understanding, it's like giving them emotional oxygen." Stephen Covey Had King George of Great Britain followed this mantra, we might possibly have never formed the United States of America. Dr. Sheila Skemp does an excellent job in her book, The Making of a Patriot: Benjamin Franklin at the Cockpit, of explaining the missteps of the British government that brought us to revolution. Equally as fascinating is the "behind the curtain" look at Benjamin Franklin's otherwise less known attributes. Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution cannot be boiled down to a simple "no taxation without representation." We Americans wanted all the benefits of being a part of the vast British empire without the sacrifices of paying for it. After the Seven Years War, where England sent over troops to help us with the Indian skirmishes and the French-Indian War, parliament had to devise ways to replenish the coffers as the native British were drowning in debt and taxes protecting and servicing their great empire. King George and Lord North found it necessary and fair to raise revenue from America. Every time they attempted to raise such revenue: the Stamp Act, the Townshend Act, the tax on teas, the Americans protested. Almost every regulation was then struck down to accommodate the colonies, while Ben Franklin in London and parliament quibbled over the meanings of "external" versus "internal" taxes and regulation tariffs. Call it what you will, one thing is certain. The Americans wanted no part of contributing to the British government (they did not mind certain regulatory tariffs versus "taxes"). Ben Franklin meanwhile was lobbying to make Pennsylvania a royal colony (taking it away from the propietary colony of the Penns) while enjoying his British high paying job of Postmaster of the Colonies, awarded to him by King George. While the British parliament threw up their arms at their repeated attempts to both placate the Americans and raise funds, Ben Franklin as the American representative and lobbyist for several colonies, continued

to speak out of both sides of his mouth: advocate for a royal colony while lobbying that the colonies be allowed more self rule. When it comes right down to it, it's not that Americans longed for "taxation with representation", they wanted independence and self rule but a connection to the British empire (similar to Australia). As Ben Franklin tried to walk the tight rope, the British permanently knocked him off when Lord Alexander Wedderburn humiliated him "in the cockpit" berating him publicly for fomenting rebellion by releasing private royal correspondence from Massachusetts royal governor Thomas Hutchison. Ben thought he was explaining to the British the American frustration of having a royal governor who was not in tune with American complaints, while the British saw that releasing this documentation only exposed their royal government in an unflattering light, angering Americans even more. The truth is, there simply could be no winners. By making a fool of Ben Franklin to release their frustrations, they lost an ally whose only wish was to keep the peace and formulate a working and healthy relationship between Great Britain and the U.S. The loss was theirs. The two great lessons in this are: had the British listened early on to the colonists, they would have realized that independence (self governance) and a healthy connection to the Empire was the only option. When Admiral Richard Howe met with Ben Franklin days after July 4, 1776 making this offer, it was too late. Ben Franklin, once a firm believer had been forever severed from British good will the day they made a mockery of him in front of parliament. The great lesson being, think long and hard before attacking someone's loyalty. By making Ben Franklin a public spectacle in the cockpit, it ultimately proved to be the biggest British policy blunder yet. It turned a true diplomat into a diehard incendiary. Listening, whether it be one on one or on a large scale such as with foreign relations, is vital to progress and resolution. Lack of listening and true understanding forever impedes. Humiliation in any form can prove to be the distastrous lynch pin.

From Dirty Politics Rises the Pillars of Rights to the Accused in Criminal Trials: A History Lesson in Aaron Burr

From Dirty Politics Rises the Pillars of Rights to the Accused in Criminal Trials:

A History Lesson in Aaron Burr

When it comes to Aaron Burr, history has it wrong. I asked my son Spencer to show me his American History book this year so I could inspect its reportings on Aaron Burr. As suspected, there was a short blurb void of facts and a speculative conclusory statement referencing Burr's dubious ambition in separating the American west from the east, even though this is not true.  The Texas School Board, is not alone, despite its notorious criticisms. One can go back to real time obituaries of Aaron Burr and read such innuendos.  History is for those who write it. History does not always add up to facts.  That is why I decided to get down into the complex minutiae of the actual Aaron Burr trials so that I could grasp the issues clearly.  I had no idea that his case was the definitive case that gave our citizens in practical reality the right to counsel, the right to bail, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to inspect evidence. My concern that a great Founding Father be properly remembered and honored in truth morphed into an inspiring illumination of how so many essential rights of an accused came into being. In fact, U.S. v. Burr has been cited in courts  383  times since 1807 solidifying the basic doctrines of citizens accused ever since the original Not Guilty verdict.

As background, before reading this book (The Treason Trials of Aaron Burr by Peter Hoffer), I was well aware of the political animosity Jefferson had towards Burr from the contested election of 1800 in which it took the casting of ballots 36 times before the tie was finally broken. I was also aware that Jefferson had paid muckrakers throughout his political career to anonymously smear his political opponents. I was not prepared however for the lengths Jefferson would be willing to go to prove his  political points and rid the country of his political enemies.  Chief Justice John Marshall said that Jefferson did not have the proper moral character to be President.  To put Jefferson's role in the Burr trials in a nutshell, here is a cursory summation.  He directed that Burr be arrested and prosecuted on the basis of a letter Burr wrote to General James Wilkinson of the New Orleans territory. Wilkinson claimed Burr wanted to "levy" a war with Spain, which was a neutral country, and that constituted treason.  Furthermore that the act of levying war was the men and arms Burr had gathered in preparation of war on Blennerhasset Island.  Here is why two juries rendered quick Not Guilty verdicts: the alleged Burr letter was not written by Burr at all but by Wilkinson and Burr was not even on Blennerhasset Island when the alleged "levying for war" took place. What we now know after Wilkinson's death is that Wilkinson was a paid spy for Spain. He obviously had to get rid of the threat Burr posed to Spain in colonizing America, at the time in possession of the Floridas.  Truth is Burr had arranged for men, ammunition and boats to gather at Blennerhasset Island to help settle the west against Indians. Burr had specifically purchased financial interest in a large tract of land out west known as his Bastrop purchase. He was also helping other men speculate out west  for financial gain (paper currency at the time was highly inflated and of little value). It was necessary to have boats and ammunition to settle the land.  In Burr's own words, before treason was a sparkle in Jefferson's creative mind, he wrote on Nov. 27, 1806 to William Henry Harrison "I have no wish or design to attempt a separation of the Union... it is true that I am engaged in an extensive speculation and that with me are associated some of your intimate and dearest friends." Wilkerson's concern was that Burr would indeed settle the American west and this would threaten Spain's interest of retaking New Orleans and more of the western territories.  Wilkerson's double dealing and necessity of getting rid of Burr fit perfectly into Jefferson's plan of having Burr hung for treason and thereby ridding himself of his most formidable political contender. 

To ensure a conviction, Jefferson had Burr arrested without bail (he suspended writs of habeas corpus declaring a threat to national security), sought to deny him access to a lawyer, sought to deny him the right to examine the evidence (the letter Wilkinson forged), and sought to have him convicted (on the basis of the forged letter) without the right to confront his accuser (Marshall ruled Wilkinson had to testify).  Jefferson directed George Hay, his prosecutor, to pay witnesses out of his funds (letter dated May 26) and gave him six pardons (three were blank) in an attempt to sway witnesses (the others Jefferson had arrested as coconspirators for treason, none of which were found guilty). He instructed Hay that if Bollman (a Burr friend also attempting to settle lands out west) "rejects his pardon... move to commit him immediately for treason..."  Chief Justice John Marshall in both the Bollman and Burr trials, set bond, allowed them lawyers and access to the evidence and the right to cross examination (with Jefferson sighting executive privilege fighting all the way). After the Not Guilty verdicts (Jefferson had Burr tried twice on two different treason counts), Jefferson unsuccessfully attempted to have Chief Justice Marshall impeached. Not learning a lesson, Jefferson attempted again to use a  treason charge to prove a political point when he had a smuggler caught shipping goods to Canada during the Embargo Act unsuccessfully prosecuted for treason.

What historians fail to recognize is that Burr had every legal right to fight Spain once war was levied (as it later was as Mexico fought to retain Texas), Burr was just waiting for Spain's first move as he settled the American West. The Burr treason trials are very important to American history and criminal jurisprudence in that it proves the executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch for political purposes.  In the early days of establishing the relations between the three branches of government, it is sad that Aaron Burr was the scapegoat and test case for Jefferson politics gone awry. To survive those ghastly trials, he had to be strong and in doing so he made sure that our American justice system could  not be used as a tool against against anyone for political reasons. That is why his case keeps coming up whether it is Nixon fighting to hand over evidence that would impeach him or a Vietnam War protestor (Watts v. U.S) being safe and free to speak his mind without threat of treason.

Was Burr an ambitious man ? Yes, no different than most of the Founding Fathers. How he did differ was that his character did not allow him to viciously attack his political foes or abuse his power. His parting speech as Vice President and President of the Senate (where he established rules still in use today) brought tears of admiration from his fellow Senators. He was championed  for fairly and adeptly handling the Justice Samuel Chase impeachment trial as President of the Senate, making sure politics did not trump the rules of law (Not Guilty as it was a political attack), little did he suspect that the example he set would later benefit him.  True to his generosity of heart and spirit, when Luther Martin  (one of his defense lawyers in the treason trials) approached him in old age needing shelter, Aaron Burr took care of him inhis New York City home  till Martin passed.  Burr from youth on, spent his entire life advocating against slavery and promoting women's equality (his education and training of his only child Theodosia exemplifies this).  I think it is about time the history books get it right.  Aaron Burr is a true American hero with the kind of fortitude this country desperately needed at at time where our experimental democracy could easily have gone the road of despotism.

Thomas Jefferson the Brilliant- our Bill of Rights

Just finished reading The Young Jefferson by Claude G. Bowers. What struck me was that an enlightened people limits government not trusts it.  Jefferson, when it comes to political ideology defines "enlightened." As a lawyer, what rings the loud gong bell for me is his wisdom in ensuring the "Bill of Rights" which is for practical reasons, the only safeguard we have today against encroachment and police tyranny (namely the 4th amendment). There are several political lessons to be learned in this story. After Independence, and it was his hand that so beautifully coined the magic phrases that defined a movement (his and Tom Paine's Common Sense) Thomas Jefferson found himself in France as our diplomat to our chief ally. His main and constant thorns were trying to calm down the debtors (international as well as French) who were owed money that funded our Revolution because the weak Articles of Confederation rendered our government powerless in levying taxes, responding timely with one voice to treaty and diplomatic issues and handling our own debt (which left our colonies divided on issues against eachother). A new but limp and powerless  country was no answer. James Madison, Jefferson's protégé while Jefferson was in France, ran with the baton of convincing all the colonies to call for a constitutional convention to enact governing statutes that made practical unifying with one effective voice all the colonies. Our great statesmen were so happy to have achieved the goal of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution that empowered our government that after achieving this goal they quit, indeed they had achieved the removal of embarassments for our overseas diplomats and the world was happy to see a government in place that made the US accountable, responsible and powerful enough to follow through on obligations to others as well as itself. If the story would have stopped here, imagine a behemoth government like the Soviet Union or China where the all powerful government would squash dissent, freedom of speech, dissenters or minority views because this would have been us. When Madison sent Jefferson a copy of the Constitution in France, Jefferson immediately voiced his rejection. An all powerful government with no direct restraints on its encroachments on its people was dangerous. Imagine if all we had was a framework that created a government of checks and balances of an executive, legislative and judicial branch and a nothing more. When we think of the Constitution we think of the Bill of Rights: our freedom of speech, of religion, to gather, our protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. We think of the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness without  government interference. But a government of "checks and balances" protects the people you might say- wrong. I spend my career reminding judges (the judicial branch) there is a 4th amendment, that police can't just stop you for no reason and even then so often judges ignore our rights (no secret that in today's MADD DWI hysteria, bad stops are rubberstamped). Without the Bill of Rights, we the people would be at the whim of the controllers. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Here are some of the passages that inspired me. In short , we are to be eternally grateful that Jefferson only acquiesced to the Constitution in approval as long as a Bill of Rights were forthcoming which, despite a seriously hotly contested battle, is exactly what occurred. We the people are in large part free to be happy because of the brilliance of Mr. Thomas Jefferson. God bless  his soul.

To a friend who wrote that the Constitution did not need a Bill of Rights because the Constitution provided for checks and balances between state (subordinate) and the federal government- "a security which exists in no other instance": he replied "The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text by which they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this way it is necessary for the federal government also; as by the same texts they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments."

To an accusation that a Bill of Rights would be inefficient: "..though it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkable difference in the inconveniences which attend a Declaration of Rights, and those that attend the want of it.  The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp the government in its useful exertions. But the evils of this are short-lived, trivial, and reparable. The inconveniences of a want of Declaration are permanent, afflicting, and irreparable."

Jefferson wrote to Frances Hopkinson (signer of the Declaration of Independence and federal judge in Pa.): "What I disapproved of from the first moment was the want of a Bill of Rights to guard liberty against the legislature as well as the executive branch of the government; that is to say, to secure the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable b the laws of the land."

Jefferson, know that those of us blessed with the sacred license to practice law to ensure others' right to happiness and protection, will do our best to keep the Bill of Rights alive. I know you would be happy. For only a free people can be happy.

Learning to Lead from the Founding Fathers

What it Truly Takes to Be a Good Leader, Good Lawyer---- My Advice to the Aspiring Young

Without going into details  of names and jurisdictions and suffice it to say that as a longtime member and now a Regent of the NCDD, I am privy to the politics of great leaders across the country… It came to my attention recently that two lawyers I dearly admire (one a lawyer, one a judge) are dealing with what lawyers should never deal with: one a grand jury subpoena, the other a grand jury investigation.  Bottom line, my opinion, both will probably rise above the fray on legal grounds  but regardless, I strongly believe both could have avoided their plights.  The key ? Do your job.  Just  do your job and refrain from negative comments and backlashing.  There is no reason to engage in personal attacks. Although it is very hard sometimes to hold back, calling someone by name “a bully” (whether or not it’s true) or threatening an FBI investigation will sometimes get you just that: bullied into a grand jury investigation to see if something sticks or the FBI investigating YOU whether or not there is anything to investigate. 

I started reading books on Founding Fathers 7 years ago  (http://foundingfathersfervor.blogspot.com/2011/01/mimi-coffeys-reading-list.html ). It all started when I read Joseph Ellis’ Founding Brothers book. In just one book I got a snapshot of the lives and interactions of the greatest men in our country who risked everything and worked together to create the world’s greatest democracy. I was hooked.  My quest for studying Founding Father literature began with that book. I NEEDED more. Not only did my mind go back in history and give me firsthand the reasons why various constitutional provisions  are what they are, I could stand up in court and better argue the law. Brilliant, right ?  So I have kept on nonstop for 7 years always reading in my nonworking spare time a book which I believe helps me understand the spirit of the Founders and this country. This has expanded into Washington’s Generals, the ladies behind those great men, etc. even encompassing   a study of the history of the French Revolution that happened at the same time. What made our leaders smart enough to bypass the masses dying via the guillotine versus the French ?  This endeavor truly made and makes me a better lawyer. What I did not realize at that time or all these years, was that reading these Founding Father books  was the perfect training ground on politics and diplomacy.  Being a criminal defense lawyer, is being a professional beggar (mitigating damages) and diplomat the majority of the time.  Only 20-25% of my cases go to trial, the other 75-80% require skill in negotiation. The Constitutional Convention- one of the greatest lessons in diplomacy that exists in this country for us to directly study (massive details left by works like the Federalist Papers, and biographies into the lives of those Founders). When I sit across a DA who holds the key and upper hand in negotiation most of the time or with a judge who has their own inner agenda,  it is a HUGE responsibility for me to maximize all my diplomacy so that at the end of the day justice happens- my client benefits.  Many a time, I have felt my blood pressure skyrocket and have had to leave to return on another designated day, a day more suitable once proper seeds have been planted and better understanding exists to finish the deal. Reading how Alexander Hamilton, although a prodigious financial genius and industrious government visionary, stifled his rise to the Presidency or had some of his biggest plans go awry because he lacked people skills in negotiating and was eventually killed by his political rival in a dual is great lessonry in diplomacy. Or studying how Andrew Jackson through an innate genius in managing how to appeal to the masses could work magic with his political enemies , or how Thomas Jefferson being the visionary personally picked out and trained two protégés James Madison and James Monroe to continue his Presidential doctrines and agendas as they took office is prime example of how if you want to be great, study the greats. This really applies to all fields but the politics and diplomacy have particular relevance to lawyers.   Many people in their zeal, although their hearts are unquestionably directed towards the benevolence for others, do all society an injustice when they communicate hateful messages for example towards President Barack Obama or Texas Governor Rick Perry. They forget the most important things which is policies don’t define us, working together for everyone’s good does.  No public servant, whether the President, the governor, the judge, or the DA (especially) does it  for the money. No politician, judge or DA takes office instantly knowing all the right things to do. We all learn through trial and error, all jobs have a learning curve and smart people never let that curve stop.  It is unfair to criticize a person maliciously for the decisions they make in their job. I can attest to the fact that some assistant DAs that I initially disdained (not that they would ever know of course), through time and experience have turned out to be some of the best and I their biggest fans. None of us can be effective by being thin skinned. We can’t take disagreements in our job personally against others, this attitude will never help others to see it our way or learn.  To effectively negotiate we must first, no matter what, see the value in others despite their positions.

 If my lawyer friends had let their zeal calm down, they might have thought twice before making statements that had no productive use other than to pin others down in a corner for which no one benefits.  I’m hoping everyone involved in that, takes a few to deeply think about what is relevant and moves on productively.   I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s statement that law schools should be two years versus three.  Not only do we need internships (like doctors after schooling for real life training), we need to add diplomacy classes and training. The best lawyers are the best diplomats. The most effective judges, DAs and defense lawyers are those who know how to get along with everyone. Only when there is mutual respect can there by possible change. For those public servants who don’t belong in office, what goes around comes around. Life has a funny way of shaking things out---- many times the right way. So young people aspiring to be lawyers, watch your FB posts, Twitter posts, and Instagram shots- be diplomatic. Don’t let disagreements be a reason for hatred and unwanted posts that no one desires to see.  Be mature and  although you can’t see the big picture yet, know that there is one. For example, the greatest politicians have capacity to bounce back and do- look at first Supreme Court Justice John Jay: after the Paris Peace Treaty his effigy was being burned in the streets (he feared for his life) only to later be elected Governor of New York.  So key words: DIPLOMACY, DIPLOMACY, DIPLOMACY. As for me, I will keep taking a breather every time someone sends me a disrespectful political email or I pass an uncouth bumper sticker- because even for them, there is always hope.