This is the second part of young Patrick Henry's courageous stand for truth against the tyranny of the British King George the Third.  What will Patrick Henry do?  Will he stand for what he knows is right or bow to the older members? The older House members fear the King and are not representing the people they are under oath to represent.  The House of Burgess began its session and by all indications it would be a few days of closing up previously discussed items.  The monotonous proceedings clipped along until someone made a proposal to review all the actions the House had done in protest against the notorious Stamp Acts and consider any further steps that could be taken to convey their displeasure with the tyrannical actions of King George.  Patrick Henry stood up in the opening debates with 7 resolutions he had written out on a blank page of an old law book.  He drew the page from his pocket and began to read the resolutions.  (I will paraphrase and abridge the resolutions.)

1. Resolved: That subjects of his Majesty’s colony have all privileges, franchises, and immunities (rights) enjoyed by the people in Great Britain.
2. Resolved: These rights have been confirmed by two royal charters.
3. Resolved: The taxation of the people by themselves or by a person representing them is the distinguishing mark of British freedoms.
4. Resolved: The Virginians have always been thus governed by their own Assemblies in the areas of taxes and internal policy.

By this point the conservative Tory members of the House were getting nervous.  No one could argue with Patrick Henry’s logic or the correctness of his points.  But they did not like the tone or the direction that Patrick was heading with his reasoning.   In 1765, subjects did not talk like this against the King’s proclamations.  Patrick Henry knew there were principles stronger than the King’s commands.  Conservatives attempted to close the debate by saying they should wait until they heard from the British Ministry and Lord George Grenville on their earlier protest letter.  (In fact, they never heard from Lord Grenville, author of the Stamp Act as he scarcely glanced at the protest before dumping letter into wastebasket.)  After much discussion, Patrick’s first 4 resolutions were adopted by the slimmest of margins.  Patrick Henry did not sit down and what happened next was a major force that changed the thinking of the colonies and forged the unity which led to the United States of America.  The conservatives’ worst fears were being realized. 

5. Resolved: That the General Assembly have the exclusive right and power to lay taxes on the subjects of the colony.
6. Resolved: That the subjects of this colony are not bound to obey any law designed to impose taxes upon them—other than the laws and ordinances from the General Assembly.
7. Resolved: Anyone maintaining a contrary opinion to this either in writing or speaking shall be considered an enemy to the Virginian Colony.

This was a new and bold innovation in the colonies.  Although the Virginian colony enjoyed incredible freedom from British Parliament, it was more from neglect than by design.  The British had left the Colonist alone and their freedoms had thrived.  Now with the British desire for money and power they began to tax and regulate the colonist freedoms away.  Patrick Henry would not take this sitting down.  The fifth resolution passed by one vote, but the 6^th and 7^th caused an uproar amongst the members.   Members attempted to shout down the 29 year old Patrick Henry.   Patrick stood his ground and spoke with the eloquence of a backwoods Demosthenes. 

“Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus, Charles the First, his Cromwell; and George the third…..”

“Treason!” cried by Speaker of the House.  Numerous members of the House followed the Speaker in castigating the young leader.  Patrick patiently waited for the fury to subside and continued.

“……and George the Third may profit from their example.  If that be treason, make the most of it.”

The House appeared to accept all 7 resolutions, but the next day the inflammatory 6th and 7th were rejected by the more conservative majority in the House of Burgess.  On the following day the 5^th resolution was rejected also.  Even with this setback the die was cast.  The political foundations of the Virginian conservative order was cracked and soon to be broken.  Copies of all 7 resolutions were sent to the other colonies and the ideas that would lead to the Revolutionary War were disseminated into the leading minds of the colonies.  Here was the spark that lit the flame inside of the Revolutionary leaders burning for independence.  Let me quote from George Willison’s excellent biography again:

If Virginia—the oldest, largest, richest, and traditionally the most loyal and royalist of the colonies—was prepared to take the lead in resisting British “tyranny”, why should her sister colonies hesitate to follow?  The answer was: They shouldn’t.  And they began organizing associations to boycott British goods and take other measure to force repeal the Stamp Tax. . . . . . . . . . .

Years later, when assessing the relative influence of American leaders on the eve of Independence, it was Jefferson, always in the vanguard himself, who said of Henry: “He left all of us far behind . . . . He gave the first impulse to the ball of Revolution . . . . He was the idol of the country beyond anyone that ever lived.”

Can one man with courage and convictions make a difference?  In my reading of the Revolutionary War, I believe this single event was the catalyst that united Massachusetts and Virginia together.  This unity created leadership teams across all colonies that formed together to resist the tyranny of the British tyranny.  I can only imagine the amount of courage it took for a 29 year old country lawyer to stand up in front of the wealthy Virginia aristocracy and speak the truth.  Where would you have stood in the Virginia House of Burgess?  Would you have rationalized the wrongs for your own personal peace and affluence?  Or would you have stood with the truth and young Patrick Henry.  Perhaps you will have an opportunity in your life to test your courage.  When you need courage, reflect back to the young lawyer from Virginia who stood up to the English empire and sparked a revolution.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

“Give me liberty or give me death!” proclaimed Patrick Henry in his most memorable phrase.  Patrick Henry was acknowledged to be the best public speaker of all the revolutionary war leaders.  After reading George Willison’s excellent biography on Patrick Henry, I realized this was not his most influential act as a leader.  There is a story from history that needs to be remembered as an example of a man and his principles.  On May 29, 1765 a young 29 year old Patrick Henry walked into the Hall of the House of Burgesses.  Only 39 of the 116 members were in the hall as many had left assuming nothing great would be accomplished in the last few days of the session.  In hindsight, nothing could have been further from the facts. 

The explosion of truth and courage displayed by Patrick Henry on this day would reverberate throughout the known world.  More evidence that individual moral acts matter in God’s eyes.  England had recently passed the infamous Stamp Act and Virginia leaders were upset at the obvious power play by the English leaders.  Virginia had always appropriated the taxes and “tyranny” was frowned upon by these freedom loving people.    As Thomas Jefferson was later to say, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”   A direct tax on the people was a new policy employed by the British.  Virginians believed it violated their rights and privileges they had enjoyed since the founding of the colony.  Although many members of the House were speaking behind the scenes—no one seemed to have the courage to go public with the complaints the Virginians had with the English taxes.   In walked Patrick Henry to fill that leadership gap and expose the hypocrisy of the English position. 

The more conservative members of the house agreed the Stamp Act was wrong in policy and in implementation, but stressed an obeisance tone to the English leaders.  Patrick Henry believed if Virginia had constitutional and inalienable rights then let’s assert those rights—not grovel for them on bended knee at the whim of King George.  Let me quote directly from Mr. Willison’s book:

In pioneer communities where people lived by hard toil and most men were their own masters, a new equalitarian society was evolving—one in which there were no marked distinctions in wealth and social status.  Depending on his energy and abilities, one man was as good as the other, and none was disposed to bow to the pretensions and obiter dicta of their self styled “betters.”

I translate this to mean, “When you are right you better stand, because to not stand for truth does not make you a peacemaker, but a coward."  The Henry family had not raised a coward and he believed strongly in his God given rights.

I will continue this historical essay tomorrow.  Here are some questions to ponder before tomorrow’s leadership lesson.  If you were part of the House and saw the English trouncing on the liberties of the colonies what would you do?  Would you gripe behind the scenes and complain about those silly Englishmen and yet do nothing when you have a chance to speak in public?  Too many would be leaders know what is right, but they lack the character to stand for truth when they believe it may hurt.  What kind of leadership ducks and runs the moment things get tough?   What do you think Patrick Henry will do when he has his moment to speak to the House of Burgess?   History is so fascinating to me because you can learn from the moral stands made or not made.  Where would our land be today had we not had a group willing to stand for truth regardless of the personal cost?  You must use your own moral imagination to place yourself as a member of the House of Burgess and determine where you would be in the early conflict that set off the Revolutionary War.   History remembers the names of the courageous few who stood for truth and relegates to the dustbin of history the cowardice majority who fawn obedience to policies they know to be wrong.   Tomorrow we will learn what a courageous leader does when confronted with truth and tyranny.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

The story of Dwight Eisenhower is a long series of assignments with no glory and the power of perseverance in waiting for his opportunity.  At 50 years of age he was a Lt. Colonel and nearing the end of his career.  Had it not been for World War II no one would remember his name—except for a few military historians.   Stephen Ambrose in his biography of Eisenhower states:

He was fifty-one years old; only the coming of the war had saved him from a forced retirement and a life with no savings and but a small pension to live on.  Although he had impressed every superior for whom he had worked, he had no accomplishments to his credit that he could point to with pride for his grandchildren.  Had he died in 1941, at an age when most great men have their monumental achievements behind them, he would be completely unknown today. 

A couple of key points emerge from Mr. Ambrose commentary.  First, regardless of fame or fortune Eisenhower did all he could with each assignment.  He persevered with whatever he was asked to do.  He focused on getting the job done—not self promotion.  Second, he was prepared when his moment of destiny came.  So many people feel life has dealt them a bad hand and decide to go through the motions.  But great leaders will play every hand life deals them.  Instead of getting worked up over injustice and playing the victim roll—great leaders make lemonade out of lemons.  Like the saying goes, “It’s not what happens to you, but how you handle it that counts.” 

I believe some of the greatest leaders developing on the team are toiling away in obscurity.  No one knows their name, but they will.  Leadership cannot be hidden and by preparing and responding properly—your moment will come.  Do the best where you are at!  Do not cry over what you don’t have, but focus on what you do have to get the job done.  This is all part of the process to develop the leadership necessary to handle bigger assignments.  Are you doing all you can where God has you in life?  Are you crying over what you don’t have or focusing on the gifts and resources you do have?  If you want more you must prove to be faithful in the little you have.

Laurie and I decided a long time ago to go the extra mile in whatever we do.  When you join the second mile club you are separated from the crowd.  Your team knows you are special and responsibility naturally gravitates to the second mile club.  Go the extra mile—accept responsibility even though it is not your assignment.  Everyone likes to follow people who get the job done with a cheerful attitude.  Eisenhower never cried about his fate, but worked diligently to be the best he could and look what happened.  He was a 50 year old Lt. Colonel ready to retire—to Supreme Allied War Commander and then two time president of the United States.   Are you the next Eisenhower?  Are you going to be prepared when your moment comes?  

I think of all the people who look back on their life with regret and believe they never had an opportunity.  I believe most were given their opportunity, but were not prepared mentally for the challenge.  When the opportunity came—they were too busy entertaining themselves or complaining about their situation to hear it knocking.  Opportunity is knocking.  Are you preparing to greet her?  Remember, “When opportunity and preparedness meet, success must happen.”   We have a responsibility to prepare and in confidence know that opportunity will come knocking.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Author Jeff O’Leary has hit a homerun with his book Centurion Principles.  Former Colonel O’Leary’s views of world changing leadership are right in line with mine.  This is an inspiring read from a man who has walked his talk.   He has a section on George Washington about Leadership that Serves Greater Ends.   George Washington took an incredible risk to be part of the Revolutionary War.  He had plenty of land and was doing “pretty good.”  Why would someone get involved in a conflict where they Colonist were severe underdogs?  I think the answer is; George lived by principles and he would rather sacrifice his wealth than his principles.  There were many times during the war where it was George’s convictions and character that held the army together.  Compromise on your core convictions is cowardice.  In the end, George Washington and his principles overcame England and a new country was formed.  We need more men and women with the courage of George Washington.  Let me quote from the book:

The greatest leaders were also great risk takers.  Stop for a moment and decide if you are willing to become that kind of leader.  If not, move on to the next chapter.  This risking is costly.  If it wasn’t everyone would be doing it.  Who wouldn’t want to leave a legacy like Washington’s behind him? …………

The key to getting beyond the illusions of fame, money and power is to take the long view.  It is paradoxically both simple and difficult.  Take the long view—not the quarterly, monthly, or daily view of your business or calling.  When you finish your race and look back at the footsteps of your life, what are you going to see, and what are you going to be proud of? ……………

Near the end, I was offered the opportunity to continue my service and be promoted to brigadier general within a few years.  I politely declined and turned in my papers for retirement at the same time my book was released.  This infuriated my superiors, and I was quickly moved from my special status of “golden boy” to untouchable leper.  But I believed then, as I do now, that we are created for a destiny greater than accumulating power, money, or fame.  (Certainly, being a general could be a high calling for someone if that was his or her destiny.  It just wasn’t mine.)

This is some incredibly courageous thinking!   A Colonel that is offered and opportunity to be a general turns it down to follow his destiny.  Very few people will do that.  Most settle for the immediate and give up the long term.   Leaders must stay focused on the long term even through the inevitable criticism.   How is your legacy coming together?  Have you even considered a legacy before?  I know I was 25 years old and had never thought about it.  That is why I am so thankful for Dexter Yager.  I heard Dexter when I was 26 and he said, “You must be willing to give up everything you have to accomplish everything you want.”   This thought resonated with me and I realized I had been playing it safe with my life.   Why are we playing it safe?   Haven’t WE all figured out that we are not making it out of life alive?  So if we are all going to die—the only question is—are we going to truly live? 

When you make long term decisions in your life you will be criticized.  The myopic thinkers cannot see what you see or think what you are thinking.  They will see your choices as foolish, self serving or worse.  You can take heart that George Washington was criticized greatly in England for his choices.  Abraham Lincoln was criticized horribly from people in the North and South during the Civil War.  Winston Churchill was a pariah for his thoughts on Nazi Germany before World War II. Albert Einstein said, “The biggest people with the biggest ideas will be criticized by the smallest people with the smallest ideas.”  Colonel O’Leary was offered a promotion and when he refused, he was criticized by the same people who loved him minutes before.    The old saying, “Everyone want you to get by, just not by them” is appropriate here.  To Mr. O’Leary’s credit, he followed his destiny.  Sometimes you have to take the road less traveled. 

Here are some closing thoughts.  Follow your dreams!  Follow your destiny!  Leave a legacy!  If it hurts—then you know you are right on track.  What is your Legacy?  Please share your thoughts with me.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Robert E. Lee the Virginian, American and Civil War general was a great leader because he had great character.  General Lee taught that you are not worthy to lead until you take your focus off yourself and focus on serving your team.  Here are some thoughts out of H. W. Crocker’s phenomenal book called Robert E. Lee on Leadership:

Lee recognized that most men—especially soldiers—have every reason to regard selfishness as a vice, and to regard an officer who thinks first of himself and then of his men, who is casual about their lives and well-being but selfishly protective of his own, as unworthy of his commission.  Vice, however tempting to the individual, rarely invites respect in practice.  Leaders who lack the respect of their subordinates must rely on force—something Lee regarded with acute distaste and a confession of failure, necessary only under the most extreme circumstances.  For the modern business leader it might be appropriate to point out that leaders who rely on force are ultimately ineffective businessmen—especially in a competitive marketplace operating with a free exchange of labor and capital.

Did you catch that?  First, if a leader is more concerned about protecting his income or his position and not the welfare of the people under their leadership—then they are not worthy of the title leader.  People followed General Lee because of who he was, not his title.   General's Lee's army followed him even when they hadn't been paid.  They followed even when they knew their cause was lost.  Why?  People knew they were following a leader who had given his all to the cause.

Second, personal character faults—lying, stealing, adultery, etc.—destroy your ability to lead.  No one follows a person willingly they do not trust.  The poorest form of “leadership?” is positional.  This is only used when the “leader?” is not capable of building a relationship based on trust.  With no trust the relationship defaults to threats and use of force.  You will do this because I am the boss!  You will do this or I will take your Christmas bonus!  You will do this or I will see you in court!  There is a better way for leaders to solve issues.  I am a firm believer that two reasonable parties can agree to disagree.  By displaying mutual respect they can still treat each other with God-given dignity.  General Lee disagreed with his subordinates at times, but he always treated them with dignity and respect.  This allowed General Lee to find win-win solutions to every issue that developed.

Third, free enterprise allows the free flow of people, capital, and ideas.  If someone has a better idea and cannot apply them at their current employer or business—our free enterprise system allows them to go elsewhere to test the ideas.  This is what makes America great.  Economist Joseph Schumpeter used the term “Creative Destruction.”   Mr. Schumpeter explained the term to mean the constant flux of people, capital and ideas to recreate the marketplace.  What makes the free enterprise system so much better than state controlled system? 

It's the reward for entrepreneurs to make the changes and benefit if they are right.  In the process of creating the new—they by definition—destroy the old.  That is free enterprise!   This is why leadership of the quality of General Lee is so important.   Ultimately, people will follow leaders over money, perks, and positions and because of leadership the money will follow them.   If people, capital and ideas are free to come and go, then the only competitive advantage is the ability of leaders to lead and teams to learn.   All over America today people are leaving jobs and businesses because the management team is not leading the people with vision and competence.  The industrial age is over and the information age is upon us.  Lead, follow, or get out of the way! 

I love free enterprise and I love the chance to test new ideas in the marketplace.  I encourage you to read up on free enterprise.  Our country is what it is today because it allows entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace and compete with their ideas, capital, and team of leaders!  Robert E. Lee won some battles and lost some battles, but he was always a man of character and won in the game of life.   General Lee won and lost his battles with honor.   Free enterprise demands that type of honor.  True leadership is the strength of character to compete honorably and give everyone an equal opportunity.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Tell me your thoughts.  What has free enterprise and personal growth meant in your life?