It may be worthwhile remembering than none other than John Adams, Quincy native, author of the Massachusetts constitution, father of a president (JQAdams), and, of course, 2nd president, was the lawyer for the British soldiers involved in the “Boston Massacre” of 1770. No one else would take the case he was told. His feeling, of course, was that everyone deserved a sprited defense regardless of the unpopularity of the crime and the potential damage to his hard won reputation. He was only 34.
Please share widely!
But never thought to make a post. Good point!
But a president himself (the second, in fact) — prior to 2000, the only time a father and son had both held the office. (Although Adams would have spelled it “defence” đŸ™‚
He did it because he thought it was right, and didn’t get INDIGNANT that everybody else didn’t agree with him.
when people did not agree with him, especially about matters of liberty, freedom, and doing the right thing. By the way indignation is defined by Webster’s as anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean. Isn’t that what we want in a leader? That John Adams, quite a guy!
who wrote this about John Adams:
David McCullough, John Adams, pages 18-19 (emphasis added).
John Adams is also the main reason we have appointed rather than elected judges. He made the case for that in Massachusetts and wrote it into our Constitution, and the Federal Constitution adopted that practice (as well as a number of other things) from Massachusetts. (Not only does MA have the oldest Constitution, it also has the oldest ACLU chapter, predating the national ACLU)
In Adams’ closing for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre he said “It is of more importance to community that innocence be protected, than guilt be punished.” Wise man.
Not that I’m not a staunch supporter of patrick, but you’re making adams out to be way too honest here. Although part of his reason for defending the soldiers was that they deserved a fair trial, let us not forget that his cousin, samuel adams, was the leader of the propaganda machine, the sons of liberty, that was capitalizing on this event. If the soldiers were convicted, the british government would have been very upset, but in the eyes of the public, justice would have been served, whereas getting convicted of lesser charges, such as manslaughter, or being let off entirely, would make the people believe further that the british government was a tyrannical power that needed to be eliminated. It is simply naive to think that John Adams was unaware of these ramifications, or that he didn’t notice that Robert Treat Paine, the prosecuting attorney, didn’t seem to be trying that hard.
<
p>
not knocking patrick, just saying that John Adams is WAY overrated.
<
p>
matt wilding
guy with a history degree
i need to use it somewhere
As another holder of a history degree, I can’t let it lay that Adams was overrated. He was clearly a genius and one of the driving intellectual forces central to the founding of the nation.
<
p>
At any rate, the basis of Adams’s defense of the British soldiers was that the British government were the ones at fault for being so stupid as to house the redcoats among the citizenry of Boston.
<
p>
However, the original point was that everyone deserves a vigorous and spirited defender in a court of law. Something that Healy could choose to ignore in her theoretical criminology world. Really, her academic output is quite modest. Did she ever write anything peer-reviewed? You can find her consulting work but is it interesting to note that in searching on the Abt Assoc. website, she doesn’t exist.
It appears we pretty much agree on things. The only thing we seem to differ on is whether puffing up the good in Adams while marginalizing the bad (in the McCullough tradition, it would seem) makes him overrated. But I am happy to agree to disagree. My point is that I hate seeing half truths about founding fathers used to credit or discredit modern politicians. The founders were no more perfect than healey and patrick. They were people of their times, and just because they said it, it doesn’t mean it’s true, nor does it mean that they actually believe it.