text:
Hardly had the dust settled at Monmouth when a major general was court-martialled for misbehavior in action. And something else was at stake: George Washington's prestige
April 1968
The President, Members and Judge Advocate being sworn: The Judge Advocate prosecuting in the name of the United States of America, the Court proceed to tlie trial of Major-C,eneral Lee, who appears before the Court, and the following charges are exhibited against him:
First: For disobedience of orders, in not attacking the enemy on the 28th of June, agreeable to repeated instructions.
Secondly: For misbehaviour before the enemy on the same day, making an unnecessary, disorderly and shameful retreat.
Thirdly: tor disrespect to the Commander-in-C'Jiief, in two letters dated the 1st of July and the 28th of June.
The date was July 4, 1778. In the fields outside New Brunswick, New Jersey, the Continental Army of the United Slates of America was celebrating the second anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, but the atmosphere in the large room of Widow Voorhees' White Hart Tavern was anything but jolly. A stern major general, four grim-eyed brigadier generals, and eight solemn colonels heard these devastating accusations against a man who a short week before was widely considered, by both friend and foe, the most brilliant soldier in the American army. Major General diaries Lee was second in rank only to George Washington. In more modern terms, the situation could perhaps be paralleled by George Marshall's courtmarlialling Dwight Eisenhower at the height of World War II or Ulysses Grant's bringing charges against William Tccumseh Sherman on the eve of his march through Georgia. Either of these imaginary events would have won major historical attention. Yet the court-martial of Charles Lee has been strangely forgotten.
From the vantage of the comfortable historical privilege of hindsight, it is easy to say that a dash between Charles Lee and George Washington was inevitable. Temperamentally they were opposites. Washington made a habit of saying as little as possible; he had no pretensions to being either an intellectual or a military genius. Lee never stopped talking and considered himself—with some justification—both a military and a political theorist of the first rank. Though he could relax with intimates, Washington, like most conservatives, valued dignity and decorum. Lee valued neither. His uniform was invariably slovenly, and his conversation was sprinkled with phrases that made gentlemen wince and ladies blush. His constant company was a pack of dogs who shared his table, lus bed, and his headquarters. Compounding these idiosyncrasies was an astonishing physical ugliness. He was thin and reedy, and his hands and feet were unusually small. His face was lean, dark, and bony, with an underslung jaw and a nose so long that for a time he was nicknamed Naso.
Yet this self-confessed eccentric dazzled a number of Americans when he arrived in the restless colonies in 1773 and immediately made it clear that he was heart and soul with the revolutionary cause. His credentials were impressive. He knew America, having fought with distinction as an officer in the 44th Regiment during the French and Indian War (he was adopted by the Mohawks, who nicknamed him lioiling Water). With liritish troops in Portugal, he had helped England's traditional ally resist a Spanish invasion and performed brilliantly as second in command to Brigadier (»eneral John liurgoyne. Thereafter, he had served as a soldier of fortune in the Polish and Russian armies, winning the more or less honorary title of major general. AVeIl educated, Lee spoke French fluently, handled Latin and Greek with ease, and could quote military experts from Xenophon to Frederick the Great.
From the moment lie plunged into the dispute between the colonies and the mother country, Lee played an extremist's role. Aside from his temperamental instability, which some biographers think he inherited from an eccentric mother who all but ignored him as a boy, Lee nursed an almost pathological hatred of George JlI and the men around him, because he had never won the advancement he felt he deserved for his exploits against the French and the Spanish. He called America the "last and only asylum" of liberty, bought land in Virginia near the estate of another ex-British army officer, Horatio Gates, and travelled up and down the eastern seaboard hobnobbing with such American leaders as Samuel Adams in Boston, Alexander McDougall in New York, and Benjamin Rush in Philadelphia. He used his fluent pen to demolish an influential conservative, Dr. Myles Cooper, president of King's College (now Columbia University). Jn "A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans," Cooper had argued that the colonists could not possibly hope to withstand the power of the professionally trained British army. Lee ridiculed this notion with a dazzling combination of mockery and military examples. His pamphlet was widely reprinted and did much to diminish the awe Americans felt for the supposedly invincible British regulars.
When the war finally broke out, Lee was one of the four men considered for the supreme command of the American army. His British birth finally disqualified him, but more than a few delegates to the Continental Congress insisted that the future of the Revolution depended on Lee's becoming Washington's second in command. The prevailing opinion about Washington and Lee at this time can be glimpsed in a letter written by Elbridge Gerry saying that Washington would be acceptable as a commander of the army besieging the British in Boston, but that a "regular" general was also required to give the volunteers the training they so desperately needed.
Lee was undoubtedly the man Congress had in mind for this task. Artemas Ward of Massachusetts was nominated as a sop to New England's pride, but when ill health soon forced Ward to retire, Lee became the senior major general. He served with distinction throughout the siege of Boston, then went south to lead the garrison at Charleston against a British attack in June, 1776.
Later in the summer, with Washington and his army reeling under a series of defeats around New York, Congress ordered Lee to hurry to his support. He played a leading role in persuading Washington to retreat from Manhattan Island and gave good advice at the Battle of White Plains. But the British capture of Fort Washington and its nearly 3,000 men caused Lee to lose almost all faith in Washington's military ability. As the American Commander in Chief retreated through New Jersey, Lee, left in Westchester County with half the army, corresponded with Adjutant General Joseph Reed, who also had nearly given up on Washington. "I do think it is entirely owing to you that this army & the liberties of America so far as they are dependant upon it are not totally cut off," Reed wrote. Lee accepted the compliment and agreed that "eternal defeat and miscarriage must attend the man of the best parts if curs'd with indecision."
When Washington summoned Lee to join him in New Jersey a few weeks later, Lee proceeded to act as if he were running a private war. He disobeyed orders repeatedly, even telling one correspondent he was ready to commit "a brave, virtuous kind of treason" to rescue the Revolution. He moved at a snail's pace through New Jersey, attempting to use his small force to revivify local resistance, which had collapsed at the sight of Washington's headlong flight beyond the Delaware. As late as December 8, 1776, lie was still in central New Jersey, telling his Commander in Chief, "The Militia in this part of the Province seem sanguine. If they could be assured of an army remaining amongst 'em, I believe they would raise a considerable number." But Washington had no sympathy with Lee's concept of all-out guerrilla war and again ordered him to cross the Delaware and join the main army. Lee lingered four days more, writing to his old comrade Horatio Gates,"… entre nous a certain great man is most damnably deficient." The morning after he expressed this low opinion of Washington, Lee was captured by a British cavalry patrol. For eighteen months he was a prisoner of war, most of the time living in comfort, trailing dinners and witly pleasantries with British army friends in New York.
Exposed to such a prolonged view of the immense effort Great Britain was making to subdue the colonies, Lee altered what had been one of his basic beliefs at the beginning of the war—that it would not last more than a lew months because "Great Britain cannot stand the contest." At one point, he actually submitted to the British high command a plan for ending the war with a minimum of bloodshed, by transferring operations to the central colonies of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Exchanged in the spring of 1778, he lobbied in Congress on behalf of the British peace commission headed by Lord Carlisle, which offered repeal of most of the laws that had prodded the colonies into rebellion. But the Americans were no longer interested in accommodation, and Lee was told to stick to his soldiering. So he returned to an army that had just endured the agony of Valley Forge. The battles of Brandywinc Creek and Germantown had been fought without him. Although neither of these clashes had been an American victory, they had done much to make professional soldiers out of the men who survived them. Months of hard drilling under Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben had likewise emboldened the American high command into thinking that their soldiers could stand against the best of the British regulars.
Lee resumed his position as ranking major general with a distinctly opposite opinion. He presented to Washington and Congress a well-reasoned plan lor a purely guerrilla war. "Jl the Americans are servilely kept to the European Plan," he wrote, "they will make an Awkward Figure, be laugh'd at as a bad Army by their Enemy, and defeated in every Rencontre which depends on manoeuvres." He insisted that the idea "that a Decisive Action in lair Ground may be risquée! is talking Nonsense." Instead, he recommended moving the army west of the Susquehanna and the capital to Pittsburgh if necessary.
These ideas struck Washington and his generals as more than a little quaint. The British, far from preparing to strike a hammer blow at the American army, were in a state of near panic. Thanks largely to the capture of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga, France had entered the war. A French lleet was en route to America, and the new British commander—fat, fussy Sir Henry Clinton—had been ordered to evacuate Philadelphia and concentrate his army at New York. The question before the American high command was not one of retreat and reorganization, but of whether the revived Continental Army should let Clinton go unmolested or attempt to strike a blow while the British were strung out in a vulnerable line of march.
Washington called a council of war on June 17, the day before Clinton was to evacuate Philadelphia. Lee, partially through his position as senior general and partially through his ability to talk faster, louder, and longer than anyone else, dominated the discussion. His overbearing opinion was probably delivered in the spirit of a letter that he had written shortly before to the president of the Continental Congress: "I am persuaded (considering how he [Washington] is surrounded) that he cannot do without me." Lee emphatically denounced the idea of attacking Clinton. He argued that with the French in the war the Americans had nothing to gain and everything to lose by risking a general engagement. From a purely strategic point of view it was hard to disagree with this reasoning, and in written opinions all the general officers except Anthony Wayne recommended nothing more daring than "a partial stroke" at the retreating British.
But as Clinton lumbered across New Jersey with a supply train some twelve miles long, he was a very tempting target. Washington called another council of war on [une 24. Once more Lee vehemently opposed a fight, protesting that instead he would like to build "a bridge of gold" to speed the British across the Hudson to New York. This time there were signs of far more resistance to Lee's ideas among the other general officers. Wayne reiterated his desire to attack. The Marquis de Lafayette urged a blow by a strong detachment on the British baggage train or rear guard. But Lee's obstinacy blunted these more aggressive opinions, and the council broke up agreeing to avoid a general engagement and merely to send 1,500 men "to act as occasion may serve, on the enemy's left flank and rear." Colonel Alexander Hamilton snorted that "the result … would have done honor to the most honorable body of midwives and to them only." That night Washington received a private letter from Major General Nathanael Greene, a man whose opinions he respected. "People expect something from us and our strength demands it," Greene wrote. "I am by no means for rash measures but we must preserve our reputations and J think we can make a very serious impression without any great risk and if it should amount to a general action, I think the chance is greatly in our favor."
This was the voice of a new American confidence talking—a voice that Lee lacked the inclination to hear. Nor did he understand the full significance of Greene's comment about the people's expectations. Throughout the winter at Valley Forge, Washington and his supporters had fought off an attempt to replace him as Commander in Chief with Horatio Gates, the hero of Saratoga. This so-called Conway Cabal—named after one of the chief schemers, the Irish-French general Thomas Conway—was in retrospect a pitifully fumbling affair, a battle of pygmies against a giant. But Washington and the men around him took it very seriously.
Washington soon demonstrated his own inclination by sending the stipulated 1,500 men under Brigadier General Charles Scott to worry Clinton's left flank and by detaching Daniel Morgan with 600 riflemen to harass the right. The next day he added 1,000 men under Anthony Wayne and told them to link up with Brigadier General William Maxwell's New Jersey brigade of 1,300 men, supported by some 800 militia, who were already hanging on the British rear. To co-ordinate these detachments, he placed Lafayette, wholehearted supporter of an attack, in command.
At first Charles Lee agreed to let Lafayette take charge. The job, he said, called for "a young volunteering general." But when he saw that the force amounted to some 5,000 men, he changed his mind. It would, he told Washington, "have an odd appearance" if he as senior major general permitted one of his juniors to take command of what amounted to almost half the American army. With considerable reluctance, Washington agreed to the change.
On the morning of June 27 Lee took charge of the American advance forces. By now it was clear that the British were marching to embark at Sandy Hook, taking the shortest possible land route across New Jersey. In another day—or two at the most—they would be beyond reach. Clinton had divided his 11,000-man force into three main divisions: 5,000 moving at the head of the supply train; behind it, 4,000 under Clinton's immediate command; and a rear guard of 2,000 elite foot soldiers and cavalry under Lord Cornwallis. On June 27, the British camped around the straggling village of Monmouth Court House. On June 28, at 4 A.M. , the advance guard and baggage train resumed the march.
The sun rose that morning with a promise of ferocity in its glow. By 10 A.M. , when Lee moved out with his men to deliver his "partial stroke," the sandy countryside, dotted with patches of scrub pine and cut by deep ravines, was a ninety-six-degree oven.
The events of the next few hours resulted in a soon-famous encounter on the field between Washington and Charles Lee, and in Lee's court-martial for disobedience and for a "disorderly and shameful retreat." The story emerges dramatically from the testimony of the witnesses who began taking the stand on that not-yet-certified Independence Day of 1778.
The Judge Advocate General was twenty-eight-year-old John Laurance, a well-trained New York lawyer and son-in-law of Lee's old friend Alexander McDougall. Under the Articles of War, Laurance was responsible for questioning both prosecution and defense witnesses. The defendant also had the right to crossexamine freely, and it soon became clear that Lee would exercise that right strenuously.
First came Brigadier Generals Charles Scott and Anthony Wayne. Scott was a tough, stocky Virginian who had fought as a noncommissioned officer with Washington on the ill-fated Braddock expedition and had distinguished himself at Trenton and Brandywine Creek. He had also headed the list of nine brigadiers who had protested to Congress the promotion of Thomas Conway to major general at the height of the intrigue. Wayne, whose courage in attack would earn him the nickname Mad Anthony, was equally tough and aggressive. Two days after the battle they had written a joint letter to Washington accusing Lee of retreating without warning and leaving them in a perilous position. Their letter had played no small part in bringing on the court-martial.
Scott told of asking Lee for orders as they began the march: "General Lee said he had none." Crossexamining, Lee asked Scott if Washington's orders meant that they were to attack the enemy regardless of whether the British were a slight covering party "or whether the greater part of the flower of their troops, as it turned out?" Scott stubbornly insisted, "I understood we were to have attacked the enemy at all events."
When Wayne testified, Lee asked him the same question and got the same answer. In reply to another question, Wayne went even further than Scott, bluntly declaring that from Washington's conversation with Lee before the battle it was clear—to Wayne at least —that the Commander in Chief was ready to bring on a general action.
Next came the testimony of Washington's aides. Lieutenant Colonel Richard K. Meade told how on the morning of June 28 Washington had sent him with a verbal message to Lee ordering him to put his troops in motion, leaving his packs behind, and to bring on an attack as soon as possible. Meade said that Lee had complained bitterly of conflicting intelligence and had protested that he already had sent one unit forward in obedience to an earlier Washington command, and he considered it to be in grave danger. Cross-examining, Lee asked Meade if he thought Washington had wanted to bring on a general action. Meade's reply was unwaveringly affirmative.
A man now testified who, Lee sensed, was one of his genuine enemies: brash, twenty-three-year-old Alexander Hamilton. He instinctively disliked Lee and had no sympathy whatsoever for his ideas about a people's war. Immediately after the battle, Hamilton had written to Congressman Elias Boudinot of New Jersey that "the finest opportunity America ever possessed [has] been fooled away by a man in whom she has placed a large share of the most ill-judged confidence … I mean General Lee. This man is either a driveler in the business of soldiership or something much worse."
Hamilton backed up Scott, Wayne, and Meade, declaring his conviction that "General Washington's intention was fully to have the enemy attacked on their march, and that the circumstances must be very extraordinary and unforeseen, which, consistent with his wish, could justify the not doing it."
"Did you, either by letter to me, or in conversation with me, communicate this idea of General Washington's intention as fully and clearly as you have done it to the Court?" Lee asked.
"I do not recollect that I ever did," Hamilton admitted.
Next came the Marquis de Lafayette, about Hamilton's age, wearing the epaulets of a major general. The boyish, sandy-haired French nobleman had been in the United States for thirteen months by this time and had acquired fluent English and a son's adoration for George Washington. He too had played a leading role in defeating the Conway Cabal, but unlike Hamilton, he did not see Lee as a similar threat to Washington's authority. His testimony was reluctant and more than a little vague. He described having marched out with Lee that morning "as a volunteer." Under orders from a Lee aide, he led part of the American column in an attempt to strike the British left flank. Some of his troops having come under fire of British artillery, he began organizing them to charge the battery; then he looked behind him and saw the rest of Lee's force retreating. So instead of attacking, he fell back too and found Lee near Monmouth village, ordering "that the troops should take post farther back." No sooner had they formed than Lee was told that the enemy was attacking his left flank, and he ordered another retreat. "While this was doing," Lafayette testified, "General Washington arrived."
Judge Advocate Laurance now asked Lafayette a blunt question. "Did the troops under the command of General Lee, to your knowledge, make any attack on the enemy the 28th of June?"
"I cannot say that I saw them make any attack on the enemy," Lafayette replied.
Lee promptly asked: "If any attack had been made … were you in a position [to] have seen it?"
"No," Lafayette admitted. He also admitted that early in the day, as they maneuvered to cut off what they hoped was the enemy rear guard, Lee had said: "My dear Marquis, I think those people are ours."
Lee then asked him a question that he was to repeat again and again. "Did you observe in my voice, manner, appearance, air or countenance, that I was in the least disconcerted, or whether, on the contrary, I was not tranquil and cheerful?"
"It seemed to me by your voice and features," Lafayette said, somewhat ambiguously, "you were then as you are in general."
In response to questions by the court, Lafayette said he had seen no sign of Lee having "any general compact plan" and said that "the orders for retreating came from General Lee," adding that "there was a great confusion and contrariety in the orders, and a complaint amongst the troops on account of it." Finally, perhaps most important, "the number of the enemy did not appear to be equal to ours." Yet Lafayette admitted, "I thought that intelligence had been received that all the British army were coming upon us."
Two days of further testimony threw little more light on the events of June 28, and on July 6 the court adjourned while the army marched toward the Hudson. In the meantime Lee did not help his cause by sending to the New Jersey Gazette an open letter in which he spoke bitterly of the "atrocious attack" being made upon his conduct and went on to describe the dubious action at Monmouth as "a very handsome check" to the British, achieved by a "retrograde manoeuvre of near four miles … fighting in a variety of places—in the plain and in the woods—by advancing and retreating, the enemy were at last fairly worn down." Anthony Wayne, writing to a friend a few days later, said that this letter "savors of insanity or flows from worse sources."
On July 13, with the court now sitting in Paramus, New Jersey, Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens was sworn. A son of Henry Laurens, the president of the Continental Congress, this darkly handsome young aide was, like his father, totally devoted to George Washington. He told of having delivered a letter from Washington to Lee on June 28 promising the support of the entire army in the ensuing action. Lee, Laurens said, had read the letter, hesitated, confessed he did not really know what to say, and continued his retreat. Laurens thought that "General Lee seemed to be a good deal embarrassed and that his orders [to his subordinates! were indistinct."
"Were you ever in an action before?" asked Lee, no doubt in his most condescending manner.
"I have been in several actions," Laurens snapped. "I did not call that an action, as there was no action previous to the retreat!"
Laurens was followed by Alexander Hamilton, who told how he had gone forward on Washington's orders to reconnoiter the country between the main army and Lee's detachment. He met Lee and his men in full retreat, "issuing out of a wood … in two or three small columns. …" He said the men "were in themselves in tolerable good order, but seemed to be marching without system or design, as chance should direct." Lee gave his orders, Hamilton said in answer to a question from the Judge Advocate, "under a hurry of mind."
Obviously irked, Lee barked, "Did you not express in the field an idea diametrically reverse of my state of mind?"
In reply, Hamilton gave a hint of the talent for elegant circumlocution that later advanced his career as a lawyer:
I said something to you in the field expressive of an opinion that there appeared in you no want of that degree of self-possession, which proceeds from a want of personal intrepidity. I had no idea in my present evidence of insinuating the most distant charge of this nature, but only to designate that there appeared a certain hurry of spirits which may proceed from a temper not so calm and steady as is necessary to support a man in such critical circumstances.
Several of Washington's other aides then confirmed that Lee had appeared to be in a confused state of mind at Monmouth and that his troops behaved in corresponding fashion. One told of asking Lieutenant Colonel William Smith, John Adams' son-in-law, why they were retreating. Smith said he had no idea; "that they had lost but one man."
Next two more of Washington's aides, James McHenry and Tench Tilghman, described Washington's confrontation with Lee. Tilghman told how they were leading the main army down the road from English-town, worried because they had had no word from Lee, when a fifer told them that the Americans were in full retreat. Washington became so angry that he ordered the boy put under guard. But the news was soon confirmed when they encountered two stumbling, half-exhausted regiments, worn out not by fighting but by running in the ferocious heat. Moments later Lee himself arrived with his panting column behind him. "General Washington rode up to him with some degree of astonishment, and asked him what was the meaning of this," Tilghman testified.
General Lee answered … "Sir, Sir?" I took it that General Lee did not hear the question distinctly.
Upon General Washington's repeating the question, General Lee answered, that from a variety of contradictory intelligence, and that from his orders not being obeyed, matters were thrown into confusion, and that he did not chuse to beard the British army with troops in such a situation. He said that besides, the thing was against his own opinion.
General Washington answered, whatever his opinion might have been, he expected his orders would have been obeyed, and then rode on toward the rear of the retreating troops.
The upshot, as everyone at the trial knew, was that Washington had successfully rallied the retreating Americans, who—under his leadership—had made a skillful and determined stand against several British assaults and had ended the Battle of Monmouth in a draw.
Among several minor prosecution witnesses who followed Tilghman, the most damaging to Lee was Brigadier General William "Scotch Willie" Maxwell, who testified that Lee did not even know on which wing his brigade was posted. Baron von Steuben, no friend of Lee's guerrilla ideas, said he had seen "great disorder." The French volunteer officer Pierre Charles L'Enfant, future architect of the nation's capitol, said that Lee had told him he had "orders from Congress and the General-in-Chief not to engage." On cross-examination, Lee asked L'Enfant if he thought that meant he intended "not to engage at all, or not to engage but in a particular manner."
"I understood that you intended not to engage at all," L'Enfant answered. He said that on the attack of a mere two hundred British, Lee had ordered a general retreat.
The Judge Advocate General now placed in the record two letters Lee had written to Washington as evidence to support the third charge—of "disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief." These underscore one of the principal ironies of the case. Apparently Washington had had no intention of court-martialling Lee. But after sulking for a day, Lee had fired off a long letter declaring that Washington's "singular expressions" on the battlefield had implied that Lee "was guilty either of disobedience of orders, of want of conduct, or want of courage." He demanded to know "on which of these three articles you ground your charge, that I may prepare for my justification … to the army, to the Congress, to America, and to the world in general." Although he insisted he had "the greatest respect and veneration for General Washington," Lee was convinced that "some of those dirty earwigs who will forever insinuate themselves near persons in high office" had poisoned Washington's mind against him.
Washington had replied with a very cutting letter, denying that he had used any "singular expressions" and listing the charges against Lee in savagely formal terms. Lee had blazed back a reply, vowing that he was looking forward to the "opportunity of shewing to America the sufficiency of her respective servants" and warning the Commander in Chief not to let "the tinsel dignity" of office "offiscate the bright rays of truth."
By now the army and the court-martial board had crossed the Hudson and were meeting in Peekskill, New York. On July 19, Lee launched his counter-attack by summoning to the stand his aide John Francis Mercer. A headstrong, extremely positive young Virginian, later a foe of the Constitution, Mercer was wholeheartedly dedicated to Lee. According to him, Scott and Wayne had retreated without orders, thereby unhinging Lee's entire battle plan. "Did I not express a great deal of indignation when you informed me that all the troops [Wayne's men] had left the woods?" Lee asked.
"You did."
In response to another Lee question, Mercer painted a most uncomplimentary picture of Alexander Hamilton's state of mind. He told how Hamilton, after Washington had exchanged severe words with Lee, had ridden up and cried: "I will stay here with you, my dear General, and die with you; let us all die here rather than retreat." Lee, Mercer said, "answered him very coolly, to observe you [Lee] well, to see whether you were discomposed. … Colonel Hamilton made answer that he thought you possessed of yourself to a very high degree." Mercer himself pronounced Lee "exceedingly composed." After describing how he had ridden up and down the entire battlefield, he avowed, "I did not see any troops that were in disorder in the course of the day. … All the troops that I saw were in perfect good order, as far as the heat of the weather would permit."
Mercer's testimony indicated the general pattern of the trial: just as Washington's aides had uniformly tried to discredit Lee, Lee's aides would uniformly contradict them. One novelty, however, was a deposition from a civilian, Mr. Peter Wikoff, who was "perfectly acquainted with that part of the country where the action had happened on the s8th of June last." Wikoff told how Lee "begged me to conduct his troops under cover of some wood, for he could not make them stand in a plain or open field so well as in the woods.… I then pointed out to him a wood and eminence adjoining, which General Lee approved of, and begged me to lead his troops on and shew them the place which I did. The eminence was the very piece of ground His Excellency General Washington afterwards formed his army on."
The court now adjourned to give Lee a chance to prepare his summation. He wrote it out and spent several days polishing it. This was probably a mistake: the final tone was much too literary to move a group of tough soldiers.
Lee began by insisting that the verbal order he had received from Colonel Meade on June 28 had been discretionary. Lee recalled it as: "The General [Washington] expects you will find means of engaging the enemy, if no powerful consideration prevent you." Lee put special stress on his battlefield discovery of "the great ravine" that cut across the entire plain before Monmouth Court House and had only a single bridge across it. It was the sort of terrain, he said, that might have proved fatal to the Americans had it not been taken into consideration. Compounding this problem, Lee maintained, was the barrage of contradictory intelligence he had received after beginning his advance. Some scouts told him the enemy had marched, others that they had not moved a step from Monmouth Court House. He then narrated how his plan to nip off the British rear guard between the Wayne and Lafayette columns was wrecked by the swift British shift to the offensive.
Thereafter, as Lee saw it, it was simply a question of where to make a stand. Thanks to Wikoff, he had found the right place behind the great ravine and had, he asserted, practically disposed for battle all the troops under his command when Washington rode up. He swore it had never been his intention to make "a general retreat." He had simply fallen back to the best position he could find.
"So far at this time from conceiving ourselves as beaten or disgrac'd … I really thought," Lee said, "taking into consideration all circumstances, the various contradictory and false intelligence, disobedience or mistakes in some officers, precipitancy in others, ignorance of the ground, want of cavalry —that it was the flower of the British army we had to deal with … I really thought the troops entitled to the highest honor; and that I myself, instead of thundering charges brought against me, had merited some degree of applause from the General and the Public." It was not so much Washington's censorious words that insulted him, Lee explained, but "the manner in which he expressed them [which] was much stronger and more severe than the expressions themselves."
Examining various aspects of the prosecution's evidence, Lee struck hard at Wayne. "I do not mean to deprecate the value of General Wayne (I believe him to be a most thoroughly brave man) but I cannot help observing, that from the moment he took command of the advanced corps he seem'd to think the whole executive duties of the day transferr'd to him, and that he had nothing to do but make demands for any number of troops he thought proper to dispose of." As for the court's tendency to stress the numbers of the enemy, Lee protested that "as every General makes it his business to conceal his forces [as] much as possible, the visible part of the opponent army is often the least." He said he had originally estimated that the British numbered 2,000 but that it had soon become apparent that "their whole army, or at least their whole flying army" was in the field.
Lee now returned to the point that seemed to annoy him more than anything else—Hamilton's assertion that Lee had been a victim of "hurry of spirits." He reiterated what his aide had already suggested, that it was Hamilton who had been "much flustered and in a sort of frenzy of valour." How was it, Lee asked, that only Hamilton and Laurens had seen agitation when "every other gentleman who had an opportunity of observing me that day" had seen the contrary?
Finally, Lee attempted to dispose of the third charge, disrespect. He asked every member of the court "to substitute himself for a moment in my place, and then to ask his own breast, if instead of the congratulation and applause he had expected, he had been received with slight and reproach, he does not think it possible to write a letter in such or stronger terms than mine, without being actuated by an unruly and contumacious spirit?" Lee avowed his love and respect for "His Excellency." But when Washington's reply brought "thundering charges … against me, comprehending the blackest military crimes of the whole black catalogue, I was more than confounded, I was thrown into a stupor.…"
The black-and-white pattern of the testimony made it clear to the members of the board that they were being forced to choose between Lee and Washington. The specter of "faction," which had scarcely been exorcised by the defeat of the Conway Cabal, was again haunting the army. They debated for three days, considering "the defendant's will and intent as well as his acts" according to military law. On August 12, the board sonorously announced its verdict. Lee was guilty on all counts, but the word "shameful" was deleted from the second charge, which was altered to read, "Guilty of … making an unnecessary, and in some few instances a disorderly retreat." The penalty more than anything else revealed the court's sense of embarrassment over the whole affair. Lee was suspended from the army for one year. This was practically an admission of the political nature of the verdict. If the court had really taken seriously its verdict of guilty on the first two charges, the appropriate penalty would have been death before a firing squad.
Is it possible, in the light of history, to reach a more objective verdict? As in most attempts to court-martial an officer for conduct on the field in the midst of a war, there were crucial missing witnesses—the men who had fought on the other side, particularly the enemy Commander in Chief. Except for an official summary report, no British statements on Monmouth appeared for almost 150 years. Then, in 1925, certain papers of Sir Henry Clinton became available, including a careful analysis of that battle.
Clinton completely substantiates Lee's claim that the "whole flying army" was in the field. Hearing "from Lord Cornwallis … that the enemy began to appear in force … I caused the whole rear guard to face about and return back," Clinton wrote. Quickly divining Lee's flanking scheme, Clinton "came immediately to the resolution of pressing the enemy's advance guard so hard as to oblige the officer commanding it to call back his detachments from my flanks to its assistance." This soon worked, and then, seeing Lee with his back to the great ravine, Clinton decided to risk a general engagement and threw in everything he had, hoping to crush the American detachment before Washington came up. Even if the main army arrived, Clinton reasoned, "Had Washington been blockhead enough to sustain Lee, I should have catched him between two defiles."
In Clinton's opinion, retreat had been Lee's only hope. His "whole corps would probably have fallen into the power of the King's army if he had made a stand in front of the first defile, and not retreated with the precipitancy he did." But the Britisher wrote, of course, out of an unshakable conviction of the total superiority of his regulars over the Americans—a prejudice that Lee unfortunately shared. The skill and ferocity with which the Americans fought off the British attacks once the two armies joined make Clinton's claims seem overconfident and cast some doubt on Lee's fears about the unfavorable terrain.
At any rate, Clinton's view was of no avail to Lee in 1778. Without a word of comment, Washington passed the transcript of the trial and its verdict to Congress to be either confirmed or rejected. Here Washington had all the heavy artillery. Even before the trial began, John Laurens had written several letters to his father, the president of Congress, accusing Lee not only of misconduct but of disloyalty. By the time Lee's aide Evan Edwards reached Philadelphia, intending to urge congressmen to his commander's support, the current of public opinion was running so strongly against Lee that the mortified Edwards wrote to him: "Matters have been so cursedly represented in this place that I have been almost mobb'd in defending you—ten thousand infamous lyes have been spread that I never heard before to byass the minds of the people against you."
When Congress dallied through the fall without coming to a decision, Lee took his case to the newspapers once more. On December 3, the Pennsylvania Packet published a three-column blast from Lee's pen insisting that the military court had made no effort to find out just what orders Washington had given him before Monmouth. He lauded American troops but carefully mentioned only victories won by them under commanders other than Washington. He then mentioned a number of resounding Washington defeats and wondered how they could be explained, granted the bravery and ability of the lower American ranks.
Two days later, Congress voted two to one to confirm the verdict of the court-martial. When he heard the news, Lee (according to one story) looked at his favorite dog, Mr. Spada, and cried: "Oh, that I was that animal that I might not call man my brother." Earlier he had written to another anti-Washington officer, Aaron Burr, announcing that he was going to retire to Virginia "and learn to hoe tobacco, which I find is the best school to form a consummate general."
But Lee stayed on in Philadelphia for a while, doing his utmost to make trouble. He urged his friend Gates to resign before Washington's partisans devoured him too; he badgered Congress for money to salvage his debt-encumbered Virginia properties. He fought a paper duel with Baron von Steuben over the German's testimony in the trial and a real duel with John Laurens, who had decided that Lee's reflections on Washington's character called for vengeance. With Hamilton as a second on one side and Evan Edwards backing Lee, the two men blazed away at each other on the edge of a wood near Philadelphia; Lee received a superficial wound in the stomach.
Finally, totally frustrated and almost bankrupt, Lee drifted back to Virginia, where he lived in the crudest poverty on his undeveloped estate, Prato Rio. He continued to stir up trouble wherever he found a willing partner. On June 7 he sent to William Goddard, printer of the Maryland Journal and the Baltimore Advertiser , a set of "whacking queries"—twenty-five so-called questions, almost all of them assaults on Washington. Goddard printed them anonymously on July 6; two days later, an angry mob forced him to reveal that Lee was the author of the attack and to promise an apology for having slandered Washington.
This was Lee's next-to-last gasp. At the end of his year's suspension from the army, Congressman James Forbes of Maryland offered a resolution "that Major General Charles Lee be informed that Congress have no further occasion for his services in the Army of the United States of America." The resolution was voted down by a narrow margin. Lee's reaction was true to form. In a fury he dashed off a letter: "Congress must know little of me if they suppose that I would accept of their money since the confirmation of the wicked and infamous sentence which was passed upon me." The resolution for Lee's dismissal was then reintroduced, and this time it carried.
Thus ended Charles Lee's connection with the American Revolution. He died in 1782 on a trip to Philadelphia, still bitterly convinced that Washington and his idolaters had deliberately destroyed him. There is just enough truth in the idea to make more than a few historians sympathetic to Charles Lee. On the testimony of the court-martial, the honest verdict probably should have been a hung jury.
But another verdict of history that Lee would have found just as galling is certainly clear from the trial. In spite of all his ostentatious talk and military scholarship, Charles Lee was not a great general. His total failure at Monmouth to reconnoiter the terrain; his indecision and hesitation, which allowed Clinton to outmaneuver him; his failure to inspire either confidence or co-operation in his subordinates—all these mark him as a third-rate leader of men. At Monmouth, George Washington was not only the commanding general, he was the real leader of the American Revolution. The men around him knew it. But Charles Lee chose to learn it the hard way.


text:
Ozone Pure Water Inc. representatives can be found throughout Vermont to offer you great customer service and detailed information about how an ozone water treatment system can benefit your home.
Benefits of an Ozone Water Treatment System
Your water can be filled with contaminants from bacteria, metals, organic compounds, and chemicals that can make your water cloudy, bad smelling, funny tasting, or potentially harmful to your health. Ozone water treatment eliminates bacteria and viruses from your water and removes contaminants including sulfur, chlorine, and even tannins and iron. Whether your water is piped in or drawn from a well, our ozone purification systems can clean and purify your water. Don't let cloudiness and bad smells and tastes affect your family's water and drinking habits.
Our systems are advanced and innovative and can be customized to fit your needs. Whether you are looking for a whole house filtration system that purifies your water before it even comes into your home, or you would rather have a point-of-use system that filters the water as it comes from a specified faucet or fixture, our vast inventory and same-day delivery virtually guarantees that you will have your perfect system fast. Each of our systems includes all equipment and materials needed, and installation is simple, making having an endless supply of clean, healthy water easier than ever.
Counties We Service:
Ozone Pure Water Inc. specialty system can provide extra protection and comfort throughout your home. Our air dryer ozonators can help your treatment systems keep working at the best by providing ample ozone for your system's use, while our pool and spa ozonator treatment systems provide safe, clean water for your family's outdoor play.
To learn more about the extensive Ozone Pure Water Inc. ozone treatment system line offered in Vermont, call our water purification experts. Our professionals will perform a complimentary advanced water test on your water supply and discuss the results as well as which system would be most beneficial to your home and family. Call us today at 800-633-8469 to begin having clear, healthy water immediately.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Success at the XPRIZE Foundation – Article by Keith Comito
Keith Comito
Editor's Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party features this article by Keith Comito of the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation (LEAF), originally published on the LEAF site on May 20th, 2019. The article brings attention to a new project from XPRIZE, focusing on Human Longevity, which the U.S. Transhumanist Party supports as part of our policy goals.
~ Brent Reitze, Director of Publication, United States Transhumanist Party, August 4, 2019
On April 29th and 30th, the XPRIZE Foundation hosted an event at its headquarters in Culver City, California that could have a profound effect on the evolving landscape of biorejuvenation research: the Future of Longevity Impact Roadmap Lab.
For those unfamiliar, the XPRIZE Foundation is famous for designing multi-million-dollar, global competitions to incentivize the development of technological breakthroughs, perhaps the most well-known being its first: the Ansari XPRIZE, which offered a $10,000,000 award for the first non-governmental organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks.
With this event, the purpose of which was to gather subject matter experts to brainstorm a potential longevity-research prize, XPRIZE has turned its focus towards solving the critical problem of age-related diseases on society and extending healthy human lifespan for all. As I was fortunate enough to directly participate in this exciting meeting, I'd like to share some of my experiences with you all.
The Room Where It Happens
The first thing I noticed upon entering the XPRIZE headquarters was how impressive it is, both in terms of size and in its almost museum-like quality of showcasing innovations in which the foundation has had a hand over the past few decades — statues, trophies, a large rocketship model hanging from the ceiling. Simply put, it is a facility designed to make you think "big things happen here", and the significance of the fact that attendees such as myself were gathered here to "discover innovative and accessible ways to radically extend everyone's healthy lifespan" was not lost on me. The times are changing, and changing fast — the tide is turning.
The second thing I noticed was just how diverse the group of attendees was, a veritable who's who of the broader pro-longevity movement: researchers such as Drs. Steve Horvath and Greg Fahy, investors such as Sergey Young (board member of XPRIZE and creator of the $100m Longevity Vision Fund), long-time advocates such as myself, Aubrey de Grey, and Jim Strole, global policy makers, journalists, cryonicists such as Max More, transhumanists such as Zoltan Istvan and Natasha Vita-More, and of course XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis.
I confess that I was not initially sure how this eclectic group would gel together in the brainstorming sessions to follow, but what was clear to me was that this could be the beginning of a watershed moment for overcoming the diseases of aging. This is the kind of room where it happens.
The Task at Hand
After the stage-setting opening talk by noted futurist Ray Kurzweil, the proceedings quickly shifted to the stated purpose of the gathering: brainstorming the most impactful and audacious ideas to overcome the negative aspects of aging and age-related disease on society.
To facilitate this, the attendees, numbering approximately 70, were divided into tables of four or five — each person tasked with generating a preliminary idea for a longevity-focused XPRIZE and further charged with convincing the rest of their table that their proposed idea should be the one put forth by their table to the rest of the group for consideration. My table happened to include Aubrey de Grey, and thus I knew that a lively discussion was all but assured.
Before beginning to debate the design of an ideal contest, however, it is necessary to understand what qualities and parameters typically make for an effective XPRIZE, and, as such, we were presented with some examples of these — having clearly verifiable goals, the ability to catalyze new markets by targeting specific industry failures, projecting a telegenic vision of hope that the public can rally behind, etc.
The entire group of attendees was also engaged to discuss how the realities of healthy life extension might relate to these various parameters, and, in this exercise, I am glad to note how instrumental the analytical work done by our outreach and writing departments at LEAF was in providing actionable information to the group. One example: when the XPRIZE team asked how the concept of gender inclusivity might relate to an ideal longevity-focused prize, the work of our team allowed me to quickly relay relevant statistics such as how a high percentage of family healthcare decisions are made by women, polling data on the desirability of life extension for both men and women, and how disparities in perception of increased longevity alter depending on how the topic is framed.
When it came time to begin brainstorming, many interesting ideas were discussed at our particular table, including the development of composite biomarkers to validate therapies targeting the aging process, and ways in which blockchain technologies could be used to accelerate drug discovery.
The idea I personally put forth was a conceptually simple one: meaningful physiological remediation of dementia (not just proxy diagnostics or biomarkers) by 2030. I thought this was well suited to the the XPRIZE qualities of "bold, but feasible" and "define the problem, not the solution", and it has several other factors in its favor, namely that dementia is by far the most damaging aspect of aging in terms of protracted emotional suffering and large-scale socioeconomic effects, it is the one aspect of aging that everyone already unequivocally believes is horrific and needs solving, the existing system has failed to solve it for decades, many promising therapy angles have no traditional profit motive and thus will not come to market without additional incentive, success would be clear to validate, and curing it would create an amazing and hopeful narrative with which to enlist the entire world in overcoming all of the diseases of aging.
Aubrey apparently agreed, and with his vote of confidence, this idea became one of the prize concepts pitched to the entire group for consideration. Ideas arising from the other tables' groups covered a wide range of topics as well, included growing fully functional organs from stem cells, demonstrating the arrest of epigenetic markers of aging, successful brain transplantation, creation of an ageless mouse, and restoration of homeostatic and damage repair mechanisms in the elderly. After the completion of these presentations, it was time for lunch, with the expectation that upon their return, each attendee would join the table of whichever idea they believed in the most and help to refine it.
It was at this time that I became most uncertain of the future of my own pitched concept, as just prior to the break, one of the organizers mentioned that XPRIZE was already planning an Alzheimer's-focused contest, and several attendees mentioned during lunch that they had planned to join our table but now supposed that it was better to support a different project instead. Sure enough, when lunch was completed, my table had become empty, but as the contest idea that I was advocating was actually quite different and larger in scope than the mentioned existing initiative, I chose to continue refining it during the ensuing session.
The final activity for the first day was for the team leaders of the newly reorganized tables to present their refined concepts on a poster shown to the entire group of attendees, who would then place stickers to vote for the concepts that they felt most worthy of actually becoming an XPRIZE. There were 18 concepts in total, all interesting, but one that I felt was noteworthy for its difference from the rest was a $5 million "Longevity Peace Prize" for whoever could convince a national government to declare aging to be a disease. This bears similarity to one of the concepts I sent to XPRIZE ahead of the event — to award $10 million to whoever could convince a national government to allocate $10 billion to aging research (a 1000x impact return and in line with other initiatives, such as the Human Genome Project and the Brain Initiative) — and one that I believe is important to have in the running in order to remind the attendees that some of the most impactful initiatives that we could choose may actually not be directly related to research.
When it came time for the actual voting, I confess that my expectations were not high for my own pitched concept, given what had transpired earlier. Thus, I was honestly shocked when it emerged as one of the top three choices along with the arresting of epigenetic markers concept mentioned above and one from Aubrey focusing on limited, but specifically measured, human rejuvenation by 2032.
As some of you reading this may know, the terrors of dementia have had a profound impact on my own family – a story that is now becoming all too common – and it would be a lie to state that seeing the support for eradicating this affliction at an event such as this did not challenge my emotional composure.
Audacity and the Time for Impact
On the second and final day of the event, I happened to meet Aubrey on the road to the venue, as it turned out that both of us preferred to walk from our hotels a few miles away. It was a nice day, and this was a welcome pleasure before returning to meet the rest of the attendees.
Once gathered again at the XPRIZE headquarters, the focus of the group became much narrower than it was on the previous day, as we were tasked to assess the top five highly voted projects from earlier on very specific criteria: How audacious is the concept? How impactful will its success and/or attempts at success be towards achieving the ultimate goal? In what timeframe can we reasonably expect a proof-of-concept? In what timeframe can we reasonably expect wide-scale adoption?
In terms of an ideal XPRIZE contest, the sought-after configuration was maximal impact and audacity, a proof-of-concept expected date achievable within 10 or 15 years, and with the shortest possible time period between proof-of-concept and widespread adoption.
The assigning of these metrics for each proposal involved a discussion among the entire group on each point, and it is interesting to note that, despite the wide diversity of backgrounds represented in the room, there was generally strong consensus on how each concept was ranked in all cases.
When all was said and done, two concepts stood firmly in the upper-right quadrant of the charts that we had collectively made, which denoted "XPRIZE Territory". These were the aforementioned proposals put forth by Aubrey and myself: limited but specifically measured human rejuvenation by 2032 and meaningful physiological remediation of dementia by 2030.
It was at this time that my emotional composure circuits may have suffered a minor systems failure, but I won't tell anyone if you won't.
Now the Turning of the Tide
Of course, with the current exercise completed and the attendees now back to their respective homes and workplaces, it remains to be seen just how the outcome will inform the immediate plans of the XPRIZE Foundation.
Regardless of how quickly a longevity-focused XPRIZE contest is launched, my personal assessment is that this event was an extremely positive one — another clear marker that for whatever battles lie ahead of us to overcome the diseases of aging, some critical battles have already been won. Public perception in terms of the feasibility and desirability of positively affecting the aging processes is profoundly changing, and fast. Influential stakeholders and organizations such as XPRIZE are seeing that the time is now to drive forward a future in which diseases such as Alzheimer's are just a memory. That is partly because of you, and especially those of you who have been fighting for many years for this cause — take a moment to feel that. Ten years ago, this would not have happened.
Finally, I would like to say that it was a truly humbling and exciting experience to participate in this event, working with a dynamic group of experts to come up with the most impactful and audacious ideas for overcoming the negative aspects of aging on society. Thank you to all who attended and organized; I look forward to meeting again.
Keith Comito is President of LEAF / Lifespan.io and a long-time advocate of longevity research. He is also a computer programmer, mathematician, musician, lover of life, and perhaps a man with too many hobbies. He earned a B.S. in Mathematics, B.S. in Computer science, and M.S. in Applied Mathematics at Hofstra University, where his work included analysis of the LMNA protein.


text:
In the event of an emergency such as a break-in or burglary, we act fast. Our emergency glaziers in Hertfordshire will arrive at your property within 30 minutes of your call being made, do not charge a call-out fee and are recommended by the Emergency Services to deal with emergency glass repairs and full glass replacements in Hemel Hempstead. We are always receiving calls to repair broken glass, repair cracked glass, replace smashed glass or install new glass for security upgrades. At Locked Out, all our emergency glaziers in Hertfordshire are qualified and trained in all areas of window glazing and door glazing and can provide 24 hour glass repairs and replacements in Hemel Hempstead for all types of glass, including, double glazing, security glass, self-cleaning glass, acoustic glass, Low-E energy-saving glass, solar control glass, safety glass, fire glass, and more.
When damage is caused to external doors and windows in Hertfordshire, access to your property becomes easy. Your safety is our priority and we guarantee to secure your property as fast as possible. Our emergency glaziers in Hemel Hempstead will arrive fully-equipped to repair any door glass or window glass, but if the damaged glass is broken beyond repair, a full glass replacement may need to be installed. In most cases, we provide same-day glass replacements in Hertfordshire for all types of windows and doors, but in the unlikely event that a suitable glass replacement cannot be sourced on the same day, we offer temporary boarding up for windows and doors in Hemel Hempstead and Hertfordshire.
We often receive calls from homeowners and business owners in Hertfordshire asking for 'an emergency glazier in Hemel Hempstead' due to opportunist thieves and burglars breaking into their premises. We get calls saying, "My apartment has been broken into and I need an emergency glazier in Hemel Hempstead asap!!!" or "My office window has been smashed, I need an emergency glazier near me in Hertfordshire!". We guarantee full emergency glazing support from double glazing guidance to window glass repairs, window glass replacements, selecting a new pane of glass for a partially glazed door, and buying new glass in Hemel Hempstead.
Our glaziers are fully certified and also trained to deliver successful secondary double glazed window repair, window hinge adjustment and hinge replacements, sliding window and glass door repairs, double glazed window replacements, handle, lock and window repairs in Hemel Hempstead and throughout Hertfordshire. Locked Out 24 hr emergency glaziers in Hemel Hempstead cover HP1 and will complete all glazing works in accordance with the strictest of UK Building Regulations and British Security Standards.
All our work is recognised by insurance companies across Hertfordshire and the UK.At Locked Out, we often receive requests for an 'emergency door glazier near me in Hemel Hempstead' who specialises in glass door repairs and glass door replacements for homes and business premises. We work with single and double glazed glass doors and can repair or replace all types of glass for glass doors in Hertfordshire.
These include sliding glass door repairs and replacements for bi-fold doors in Hemel Hempstead, glass for patio doors, conservatory glass doors, commercial glass doors, glass shopfronts, shop doors, uPVC door glass, aluminium door glass, and glass for timber doors in Hemel Hempstead.
We also supply and fit window glass for all types of windows and offer 24 hour emergency glaziers in Hemel Hempstead for window glass repairs and replacements across Hertfordshire.
If you happen to be looking for an 'emergency glazier in Hemel Hempstead', contact our team for fixed window glass repair, fixed window glass installation, casement window glass in Hemel Hempstead, skylight and roof lantern glass, bay window glass repair and replacement in Hertfordshire, emergency exit window glass, internal glazing repair and replacement, French window glass repair and replacement, double glazed uPVC window seal services and leadlights for glass units. We offer 24 hour emergency window repairs and glass replacements in Hertfordshire 24/7.
Our emergency double glazing technicians in Hertfordshire provide 24 hour double glazed door and window solutions for wooden double glazed doors, timber windows, uPVC double glazed doors, uPVC double glazed windows, aluminium double glazed doors, and aluminium double glazed windows in Hemel Hempstead and across Hertfordshire.
We also supply and install 24 hour double glazing for cracked shopfront glass in Hemel Hempstead and provide 24 hour commercial and residential double glazing services in Hertfordshire. If you happen to be looking for an 'emergency glazier in Hemel Hempstead' for double glazing repairs or replacements, just get in touch with our team for a free consultation.
When searching for a 'cheap emergency glazier in Hemel Hempstead', Locked Out 24 hour glaziers can arrive fast without charging a call-out fee. We understand that 24 hour emergency glazing prices in Hertfordshire increase a lot with a call-out fee and it is part of our philosophy to keep the cost of 24 hour emergency glaziers in Hemel Hempstead as affordable as possible.
We often get requests for the cheapest emergency glaziers in Hemel Hempstead HP1 and know this is because there are emergency 24 hour glaziers in Hertfordshire that do overcharge. Here at Locked Out, we believe in fair and honest pricing for all our emergency glass repairs, new glass replacements and emergency glazing across Hemel Hempstead and Hertfordshire.We consider any glass damage an emergency, especially external door glass and window glass damage. Emergency glass repairs and replacements in Hemel Hempstead are often required in response to burglaries and break-ins where cracked glass, smashed windows or broken glass doors present a security risk.
We deliver vetted, inspected and qualified 24 hour emergency glaziers in Hertfordshire who are reliable, experienced and recommended by the Emergency Services. Requests such as "I need a 24 hour emergency glazier near me in Hemel Hempstead to fix my glass door" or "I need an emergency glazier in Hemel Hempstead to replace the glass in my door" are not uncommon to us.
For 'emergency glaziers near me in Hertfordshire' just call us and we will not leave you unattended.We have extensive experience and can help you
in any of the following areas.
Locked Out Locksmiths are a Emergency Services Certified locksmith business based in Kensington, London.
We have been serving homes and businesses throughout London and the surrounding areas for over 50 years and have built an excellent reputation on fast-response, dedication and our expertise in all services; from locksmithing and glazing to window and door repairs and replacements!
Our team of experianced locksmiths and glaziers also specialise in fast-response burglary repairs and boarding up services.
Just fill out the form and you will immediately receive a call from one of our expert locksmith technicians.
All your personal details are kept strictly confidential and will be used solely for correspondence between us.
When you hire us to be your locksmith or glazier,
you want peace of mind. The peace of mind knowing
that your home or business will be safe when one
of our technicians visits your residential or
commercial property.
© Copyright 2020 Lockedout London. Address: 69 Chesterton Square, Kensington, Greater London, W8 6PJ. Design, Build & SEO
TAGS: Locksmith Near Me | Low Priced locksmith London | Cheap Locksmith London | Lowcost Locksmiths London | Mobile Locksmith London | Locked Out Locksmiths London | Locksmith London | Burglary Repairs London | Boarding Up London | Door Repair and Replacements London | Glazier London | Glass Services London | Emergncy Glazing London | Emergency Window Replacement London | Window Repairs London | Domestic Locksmith London | Commercial Locksmith London


text:
By JORDAN RAU
Amid all the turbulence over the future of the Affordable Care Act, one facet continues unchanged: President Trump's administration is penalizing more than half the nation's hospitals for having too many patients return within a month.
Medicare is punishing 2,573 hospitals, just two dozen short of what it did last year under former President Obama, according to federal records released Aug. 2. Starting in October, the federal government will cut those hospitals' payments by as much as 3 percent for a year.
Medicare docked all but 174 of those hospitals last year as well. The $564 million that the government projects to save also is roughly the same as it was last year under Obama.
High rates of readmissions have been a safety concern for decades, with one in five Medicare patients historically ending up back in the hospital within 30 days. In 2011, 3.3 million adults returned to the hospital, running up medical costs estimated at $41 billion, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The penalties, which begin their sixth year in October, have coincided with a nationwide decrease in hospital repeat patients. Between 2007 and 2015, the frequency of readmissions for conditions targeted by Medicare dropped from 21.5 percent to 17.8 percent, with the majority of the decrease occurring shortly after the health law passed in 2010, according to a study last year in the New England Journal of Medicine conducted by Obama administration health-policy experts.
Some hospitals began giving impoverished patients free medications that they prescribe for their recovery, while others sent nurses to check up on patients seen as most likely to relapse in their homes. Readmissions dropped more quickly at hospitals potentially subject to the penalty than at other hospitals, another study found.
"The sum of the evidence really suggests that this program is helping people," said Dr. Susannah Bernheim, the director of quality measurement at the Yale/Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, which measures readmission rates for Medicare.
But the pace of these reductions has been leveling off in the past few years, indicating that the penalties' ability to induce improvements may be waning.
"Presumably, hospitals made substantial changes during the implementation period but could not sustain such a high rate of reductions in the long term," the New England Journal article said.
An analysis by Bernheim's group found no decrease in the overall rate of readmissions between 2012 and 2015, although small drops in the medical conditions targeted by the penalties continued.
"We have indeed reached the limits of what changes in how we deliver care will allow us to do," said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality at the American Hospital Association. "We can't prevent every readmission. It could be that there is further room for improvement, but we just don't know what the technique is to make that happen."
The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was created through a section of the ACA designed to use the purchasing power of Medicare to reward hospitals for higher quality. Those penalties, along with other ones aimed at improving hospital care, have been spared the partisan rancor over the law, and they would have continued under the GOP repeal proposals that stalled in Congress. But they have also been largely ignored.
Dr. Ashish Jha, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said the fight over abolishing the Affordable Care Act has drowned out talk about how to make the health care system more effective. "We've spent the last six months fighting about how we're going to pay for health insurance, which is one part of the ACA," he said. "There's been almost no discussion of the underlying health care delivery system changes that the ACA ushered in, and that is more important in the long run to be discussing because that's what's going to determine the underlying costs and outcomes of the health system."
The readmission penalties are intended to neutralize an unintended incentive in how Medicare pays hospitals that had profited from return patients. Medicare pays hospitals a lump sum for a patient's stay based on the nature of the admission and other factors. Since hospitals generally are not paid extra if patients remain longer, they seek to discharge patients as soon as is medically feasible. If the patient ends up back in the hospital, it becomes a financial benefit as the hospital is paid for that second stay, filling a bed that would not have generated income if the patient had remained there continuously.
Because of how the readmission-penalty program was designed, it is not surprising that the new results are so similar to last year's. As before, Medicare determined the penalties based on readmissions of the same six types of patients: those admitted for heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, chronic lung disease, hip or knee replacements or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Hospitals were judged on patients discharged between July 2013 and June 2016. Because the government looks at a three-year period, two of those years were also examined in determining last year's penalties.
This year, the average penalty will be 0.73 percent of each payment Medicare makes for a patient between Oct. 1 and Sept. 30, 2018, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis. That too was practically the same as last year. Forty-eight hospitals received the maximum punishment of a 3 percent reduction. Medicare did not release hospital-specific estimates for how much lost money these penalties would translate to.
More than 1,500 hospitals were exempted from penalties this year as required by law. Those include hospitals treating veterans, children and psychiatric patients. Critical access hospitals, which Medicare also pays differently because they are the only hospitals in their areas, were excluded. So were Maryland hospitals because Congress has given that state extra leeway in how it distributes Medicare money.
Of the 3,241 hospitals whose readmissions were evaluated, Medicare penalized four out of five, KHN's analysis found. That is because the program's methods are not very forgiving: A hospital can be penalized even if it has higher than expected readmission rates for only one of the six conditions that are targeted. Every non-excluded hospital in Delaware and West Virginia will have their reimbursements reduced. Ninety percent or more will be punished in Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Virginia. Sixty percent or fewer will be penalized in Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota and Utah.
Since the readmission program's structure is set by law, the administration cannot make major changes unilaterally, even if it wanted to.
Congress last year instructed Medicare to make one future alteration in response to complaints from safety-net hospitals and major academic medical centers.
They have objected that their patients tended to be lower income than other hospitals and were more likely to return to the hospital, sometimes because they didn't have a primary care doctor and other times because they could not afford the right medication or diet. Those hospitals argued that this was a disadvantage for them since Medicare bases its readmission targets on industry-wide trends and that it hurt them financially, depriving them of resources they could use to help those same patients.
Bernheim noted that despite those complaints, safety-net hospitals have shown some of the greatest drops in readmission rates. In October 2018, Medicare will begin basing the penalties on how hospitals compared to their peer groups with similar numbers of poor patients. Akin Demehin, director of policy at the hospital association, said, "We expect the adjustment will provide some relief for safety-net hospitals."
Medicare is planning to release two other rounds of recurring quality incentives for hospitals later this year. One gives out bonuses and penalties based on a mix of measures, with Medicare redistributing $1.9 billion based on how hospitals perform and improve. The other, the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program, cuts payments to roughly 750 hospitals with the highest rates of infections and other patient injuries by 1 percent.


text:
* Serves as a conduit for facilitating anonymous donations to activist groups
* Was a supporter of the community organization ACORN
Wellspring Advisors is a philanthropy/philanthropic advisory firm whose mission is to "coordinat[e] grant-making programs that advance the realization of human rights and social and economic justice for all people"—particularly "the most marginalized and vulnerable." Toward this end, Wellspring often serves as a conduit for facilitating anonymous donations to groups whose vision of what constitutes "social and economic justice" may be controversial. For instance, Wellspring performed precisely this function—along with such entities as the Vanguard Charitable Endowment, the Rockefeller Fund, and the Tides Foundation—for the pro-socialist, infamously corrupt community organization ACORN.
As ACORN insider-turned-whistleblower Anita Moncrief explains, "Donors were able to give anonymously to Wellspring so the money would not be traced back to where it was coming from, and Wellspring would then cut a check from Vanguard." Moncrief further points out that Wellspring is also a "major donor" of the ACORN affiliate Project Vote.
According to a House Oversight Committee report, Wellspring collaborated with Citizens Consulting Inc. (CCI), which was the major accounting arm of ACORN's national group and its allied organizations, to illegally misappropriate and co-mingle ACORN and Project Vote funds. Moncrief explains: "Money was funneled through Wellspring, from there it went into various bank accounts controlled by CCI. CCI had dozens and dozens of accounts. Some were Project Vote and some were ACORN."
Wellspring is a member of the Peace and Security Funders Group, an association of foundations, charitable trusts, and individual philanthropists who "make grants or expenditures that contribute to peace and global security."
(Information on grantees and monetary amounts courtesy of The Foundation Center, GuideStar, ActivistCash, the Capital Research Center and Undue Influence)


text:
Solar Heating
A.T.E. firmly believes that sustainable development is possible only when corporates get involved in sustainable business practices. Through this passion and commitment, A.T.E. has invested in and developed technologies and products; one such product is the A.T.E. solar thermal concentrator. Developed in-house, the Concentrated Solar Thermal system can provide process heat for various industrial and commercial applications. A.T.E.'s unique approach to combine energy efficiency with renewable solar energy delivers the largest savings in carbon-intensive fuels, and directly influences the bottom-line, thus enabling our customers to meet not only their business goals, but those of sustainability as well.


text:
Questions? Contact Personal Transformation Institute at 734-777-0348 or email@example.com
June 10-12, 2020
July 15-17, 2020
Consultation: Ten hours of consultation are required in order to complete the training. Eight hours of consultation are provided during the dates listed above. The remaining 2 hours of consultation will be completed between the two weekends on Zoom. Contact the Personal Transformation Institute directly for more information.
PTI Training Staff
This EMDR Training is designed for licensed mental health professionals who work in a clinical setting. The training meets EMDRIA requirements and includes lectures, live demonstrations, videotaped demonstrations, and supervised practice. The consultation hours are included in the registration fee.


text:
Headquartered in New York City, Feintuch Communications is an award-winning strategic relations firm offering clients an integrated blend of public relations, social media, advertising/marketing, investor relations, web/digital marketing and other services to meet their business objectives. We specialize in b-to-b and b-to-c programs with a focus in technology, financial services, advertising and media, clean energy and professional services. Feintuch Communications prides itself on its strong service ethic, senior counselor involvement, hands-on support and entrepreneurial orientation.
© Copyright 2022 Feintuch Communications, Inc.
Site design by Bob Buchanan Design.
Photography and videography by Connor Leszczuk.
MediaRoom technology and hosting by PR Newswire.


text:
University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole spoke at CSU Long Beach on Thursday, October 16. I attended and videotaped the event which was organized by the Middle Eastern Studies Program with assistance from the Department of History and History Students' Association, and is sponsored by the Office of the Provost and College of Liberal Arts. The auditorium was standing room only, so I am guessing there was around 300 students and professors in attendance. The topic was ISIS. Cole spoke on the historical events mostly in Iraq from the end of the Ottoman Empire to the present and spoke very briefly on Syria. He spoke for about an hour before taking questions. As expected, he spoke very derisively of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Much of his talk focused on the displacement of the Sunnis/Baath party with the fall of Saddam Hussein and how they became fighters against the Shi'ite regime eventually morphing into ISIS.
One of the more noteworthy things Cole said, however, came during the q and a (Tape 119 at 4:15 mark) when a young man asked him about the Westerners who have joined ISIS, particularly the Brit known as Jihadi John who carried out the notorious beheadings. This led Cole into a denunciation of British Prime Minister David Cameron, who Cole said was using the issue to cause fear among the British public. Cameron, said Cole, was playing to his Conservative Party constituency, which he calls racist. He called the release of the news Islamophobic, a way to beat up on British Muslims, and said that Cameron should be ashamed. Cole added that there are almost 4 million Muslims in Britain and that the quoted number of 400 who have reportedly gone to join ISIS is an infinitesimal number. He briefly referred to the FBI claiming that some 100 Americans have joined up but said nothing about all the other Western nations whose passport-holders have joined. In responding to another young female questioner, Cole condemned Islamophobia and stereotyping of Muslims.
I had to leave just as the last two audience members were lined up at the microphone so I missed their questions and Cole's answers.
Comment: While Cole has probably forgotten more about the Middle East than I will ever know, I do take exception with his comments about the release of news that some 400 British Muslims have gone off to join ISIS. While it may be an infinitesimal number compared to the overall Muslim population of the UK, and may not represent majority Muslim thought, it is a cause for concern. Four hundred ISIS fighters returning to Britain can do a lot of damage to a country that has already experienced the slaughter of a British soldier on a London street and the recent beheading of a woman by a Muslim convert. In addition, the killer who attacked the Brussels Jewish center was a French citizen who had returned from fighting in Syria-to say nothing about the pernicious influence of Anjem Choudary and his followers in the UK. Finally, such Western fighters have originated in other European countries as well as Canada, Australia and the US. This is nothing for Cole to pooh-pooh. But, let's face it: Cole has his agenda.


text:
Tierney Stauffer LLP Website Privacy Statement
Last Updated: 2020-12-18
This Privacy Policy is provided by Tierney Stauffer LLP (referred to as either "the Firm", "We", "Us" or "Our") to inform Users (referred to as either "You", "Visitor" or "User") about features of the Firm's Website (referred to as either "Website" or "Site"). Important information about Our data gathering and dissemination practices follows. By accessing or using the Website, You agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this Privacy Policy.
Our Firm is committed to providing Visitors with a Website that respects their privacy.
Security and Confidentiality
The transmission of data or information over the internet or other forms of networks may not be secure, and is subject to possible loss, interception, or alteration while in transit. The Firm cannot guarantee security of any communication to or from the Website. The Firm does not assume any liability for any damage You may experience or costs You may incur as a result of any electronic transmissions over the internet, other forms of networks or otherwise while using the Website.
Unless We have confirmed in writing that We represent or act for You, in no event will any information You provide on or through the Website be deemed to be confidential, create any fiduciary obligations to You on Our part, or result in any liability to You on Our part. Unsolicited emails from non-clients do not establish a lawyer-client relationship and may not be privileged. You should take reasonable and appropriate precautions to ensure compatibility of any website You visit with Your specific computer, mobile or other device. The Firm does not assume any responsibility or risk for your use of the internet.
Communicating with the Firm
Unless otherwise noted, We do not automatically gather any specific information from You, such as Your name, telephone number or email address. We would obtain this type of information only if You supplied it to Us, for example, by email or by filling in an online form.
If You choose to send an email message to the Firm or to complete a contact form on the Website, Your personal information will be used by Us to respond to Your inquiry. The information You provide will not be shared with any third parties for commercial purposes. The Firm does not use such information to create individual profiles, nor does it disclose the information to anyone other than persons at the Firm who need to provide You with a response. Information provided by You is used solely for the purpose for which it is intended.
Email messages and other electronic methods used to communicate with the Firm are not secure. Please do not send any sensitive personal information, such as Your Social Insurance Number or Your date of birth, through non-secure electronic channels.
Improving Your Experience on the Website
Usage Data
Web servers automatically collect information about visits to the Website, including the Visitor's Internet Protocol (IP) address. IP addresses are unique numbers assigned to all devices used to access the internet. The IP address, on its own, does not identify an individual. However, in certain circumstances, such as with the co-operation of an ISP for example, it could be used to identify an individual using the Site.
We employ software programs that monitor network traffic and detect unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. These programs record the IP addresses of computers that visit this site. They also record the date and time of visits, the pages viewed, and the browsers and operating systems used by Visitors. We do not attempt to link this information to the identities of individual Users, unless an attempt to damage the Site has been detected.
Visitor IP addresses are also recorded by the Google Analytics software installed on the Website.
Digital Markers (including cookies)
A digital marker is a resource created by the Visitor's browser in order to remember certain pieces of information for the web server to reference during the same or subsequent visits to the Website. Examples of digital markers are "cookies" or HTML5 web storage. Some examples of what digital markers do are as follows:
- they allow a website to recognize a previous visit each time the visitor accesses the site;
- they track what information is viewed on a site, which helps website administrators ensure visitors find what they are looking for.
We use digital markers on some portions of the Website. During Your online visit, Your browser exchanges data with Our web server. The digital markers used do not allow Us to identify individuals.
The provision of personal information for communications and information technology web analytics purposes is optional. You may refuse the installation of or delete the digital markers used by Our web analytics tools from Your device through the settings of Your web browser (more information).
Web Analytics
Web analytics is the collection, analysis, measurement, and reporting of data about website traffic and visits for purposes of understanding and optimizing web usage. Information in digital markers may be used for the purpose of web analytics to remember Your online interactions with our Website.
We use Google Analytics to improve the performance of the Website. When Your device requests a web page on the Website, Google Analytics collects user information such as:
- active users
- geo (location, language)
- technology (browser, operating system, network)
- devices (desktop, mobile, tablet)
- demographics (age, gender)
- user flow
- session quality
Such data may be used for statistical and administrative purposes to assist the Firm in making enhancements to the Website.
For a detailed list of metrics tracked by Google Analytics, please click here.
For information about Google Analytics' privacy policy and data collection practices, please click here.
If you do not want Your information shared with the Analytics software, Google makes available a plug-in for Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Chrome browsers which prevents Your browser from sharing any information with Google Analytics. You may download and install the plug-in here.
We may use a captcha service called reCAPTCHA. reCAPTCHA is a service that protects the Website from spam and other types of automated abuse. The reCAPTCHA service may collect information from Your device for security purposes.
reCAPTCHA is operated by Google. The information gathered by reCAPTCHA is held in accordance with Google's privacy policy.
Google Places
Google Places is a service that returns information about places using HTTP requests. Google Places service may collect information from You and from Your device for security purposes.
Google Places is operated by Google. The information gathered by Google Places is held in accordance with Google's privacy policy.
We may provide paid products and/or services within the Website. In that case, We may use third-party services for payment processing (e.g. payment processors) such as Stripe or PayPal.
We will not store or collect Your payment card details. That information is provided directly to Our third-party payment processors whose use of Your personal information is governed by their privacy policy.
To view the Stripe privacy policy, please click here.
To view the PayPal privacy policy, please click here.
These payment processors adhere to the standards set by PCI-DSS as managed by the PCI Security Standards Council, which is a joint effort of brands like Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover. PCI-DSS requirements help ensure the secure handling of payment information.
When You use our Website to pay for a product and/or service via bank transfer, We may ask You to provide information to facilitate this transaction and to verify Your identity.
Third-Party Social Media
The Firm's use of social media serves as an extension of its presence on the web. Social media accounts are public and are not hosted on Our servers. Users who choose to interact with the Firm via social media should read the terms of service and privacy policies of these third-party service providers and those of any applications You use to access them.
To view the privacy policies of third-party social media providers, please click the following links: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube.
Outside Links
This Website contains links to other websites that are not operated by the Firm. These links are provided as a convenience only. If you click on a third-party link, You will be directed to that third party's website. Third-party websites may have different privacy policies and practices than our Website. You are advised to read and review the privacy policy of every site You visit.
The Firm has no control over and assumes no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third-party websites or services.
Changes to this Privacy Policy
The Firm may change any part of this Privacy Policy at any time. We will notify You of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page. Users are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.
If You have any questions about this Privacy Policy, or require additional information, please contact Us by filling out the online form, by firstname.lastname@example.com, or by calling 1-888-799-8057.