We learn very young that Benjamin Franklin with charm and cunning forged the Franco-American alliance that won our Independence.

That’s what we were taught, anyway. But it’s not true.

The true story is that in 1775 the Continental Congress decided to send someone on a secret mission to persuade France to arm them against Britain. Franklin proposed  a Yankee shopkeeper named “Silas Deane”. Deane had never left Connecticut in his life, could not speak a word of French, and knew nothing about diplomacy. Franklin thought that Deane was such an improbable spy the British would never suspect him.

With nothing but the worthless paper money printed by the Continental Congress, Deane arrived in France in July, 1776, unaware that Congress had just declared Independence. He was, in effect, our first emissary to Europe, and for the next six months without any diplomatic instructions, he improvised. He succeeded in his mission with the help of the French comic playwright, Beaumarchais, who wrote, “The Marriage of Figaro,” and “The Barber of Seville.” 

Beaumarchais was a dashing and brilliant bon vivant who invented the wrist watch, designed the modern harp, and built the Paris water system. He was also an arms dealer on the side.

Together Deane and Beaumarchais shipped all the arms and supplies for the Continental Army even before Franklin set foot in France.

None of this secret dealing would have been possible without the unwitting help of the French ambassador to London, the Chevalier d’Eon. D’Eon was a famous military hero, an accomplished diplomat, and a French spy. He was also blackmailing Louis XVI, and the King had asked Beaumarchais to try to negotiate with D’Eon.

When D’Eon met Beaumarchais he was instantly drawn to the handsome playwright and confessed that he was, in fact, secretly a woman. D’Eon told Beaumarchais that her father had preferred a son and raised her as a boy and that in her male disguise she found opportunities to succeed that no woman ever had.

Beaumarchais offered to marry d’Eon in exchange for her abandoning both her blackmail threat and her male persona. Beaumarchais’ reward for neutralizing the threat to Louis XVI was that the King agreed to give Beaumarchais the arms for the Americans.

Thus, d’Eon’s decision to come out as a woman provided the catalyst that forged the Franco-American alliance and won our independence.

This Independence Day let’s remember our debt not just to Silas Deane, Beaumarchais, and France, but also to the cross-dressing spy who made it all possible.

The election of the forty-first Republican and the first nudie model to the U.S. Senate has the pundits chattering. Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts senate race is being read as a dark omen of what the Democrats will face in the mid-term election. Does Scott Brown’s election really signal the emergence of the Tea Party as a powerful new reactionary force on the American political scene? Does his election foretell the end of the Democratic majority? Is it a turning point in American politics?  

We can’t know for sure, but history is never so predetermined. It’s more than likely that the pundits are wrong. After all these are the same pundits who predicted last year that the Democratic majority would rule for a generation – before they predicted that Obama was unelectable and Hillary Clinton had the Democratic nomination sewn up.

Here’s another interpretation: Scott Brown defeated an indifferent Democratic politician who didn’t even bother to campaign. The handful of voters who showed up at a special election in the middle of winter were motivated by frustration and anger – not necessarily directed at President Obama – but at the local Democratic machine politicians who took them for granted and run Massachusetts like a one-party state.

The media’s penchant for reading too much into Scott Brown’s election is a common phenomenon. Looking backward we often attribute significance to events that might be merely random localized occurrences. On the other hand, sometimes random occurrences can alter the course of history. We learn in school that history is determined by great leaders, big ideas, or broad social movements. But sometimes, history is determined by accident.

The success of the American Revolution, for example, has been attributed to a wide-range of causes: the brilliant leadership of our founding fathers, the ideology of civic republicanism, and the social mobility of American colonists. But a more likely explanation is the particular timing of France’s intervention on the side of the colonies.

Why did Louis XVI agree to aid the American revolutionaries when they appeared to be losing? The conventional explanation is that Benjamin Franklin charmed the French monarchy into providing all of the arms, ammunition and supplies for the Continental Army. But, in reality, Franklin had nothing to do with it.

In January 1776, long before Franklin arrived in France, he sent an unknown Connecticut shopkeeper, Silas Deane, on a secret mission to persuade Louis XVI to arm the Americans. Deane had never left Connecticut in his life, could not speak a word of French, and knew nothing about diplomacy. But Franklin thought that Deane was such an improbable emissary that the British spies would never suspect him.

Deane succeeded with the help of two Frenchmen: the comic playwright Caron de Beaumarchais and the French ambassador to London Chevalier d’Eon. This improbable trio are the subject of my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES: How a Merchant, a Playwright, and a Spy Saved the American Revolution.

Beaumarchais was one of the most interesting men of the nineteenth century. Though he is best remembered as the author of the original plays, “The Barber of Seville” and “The Marriage of Figaro,” he also invented the wristwatch, designed the modern harp, performed and taught music, built the Paris water system with the Perrier brothers, spied for the French King, and traded arms on the side. Deane and Beaumarchais together smuggled all of the arms, ammunition, uniforms, tents, blankets, and boots for an army of 30,000 men passed a swarm of British spies and through a British blockade to the Continental Army. The arms were sent before Franklin even set foot in France, and they arrived just in time to sway the outcome of the Battle of Saratoga, the turning point of the American Revolution.

None of this would have been possible without the leavening influence of the flamboyant Chevalier d’Eon. D’Eon was a decorated French war hero, an accomplished diplomat, and a brilliant spy, who was also blackmailing the French king. Louis XVI sent Beaumarchais on a secret mission to London to persuade d’Eon to surrender the incriminating documents. The dashing playwright ended up seducing d’Eon, who  admitted to Beaumarchais that he was in fact – a woman.

D’Eon’s decision to come out as a woman after forty years disguised as a male soldier, diplomat and spy set in motion a series of events that provided the catalyst that convinced Louis XVI to arm the Americans against the British. How and why that happened is the story of UNLIKELY ALLIES.

The point of my book is that history isn’t just hammered out by great leaders or great ideas or great social movements; the arc of history is just as often bent by random events, peripheral characters, and strange coincidents. History, like weather, is subject to the famous “butterfly effect.”

Scott Brown’s election is another chance occurrence. Perhaps he will change the trajectory of political history. But I doubt it. Right now, the forty-first Republican has nothing coherent to offer except his rigid opposition to health reform. Between now and the next election there will be many more butterflies that none of us can anticipate. We should be cautious about reading too much into a special election.

I’m not saying that Brown’s election is completely irrelevant. Maybe someday Brown will look no less significant in American history than that cross-dressing French spy who revealed herself. But for now all we can say for sure about Brown is that the senator has no clothes.

Cross-posted at http://www.acslaw.org/node/15336

The normally circumspect David Brooks of The New York Times could hardly contain himself on the News Hour. The buttoned-down conservative sputtered that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was “a joke,” and he dismissed the Nobel Prize Committee as nothing more than “five Norwegian lefties.” Other commentators were quick to pass judgment that the Nobel Committee was behaving like the Democratic Campaign Committee by awarding the prize first to Vice-President Gore and now President Obama. After all, what exactly had Obama accomplished?

Obviously, nine months into his first year in office and only five years out of the Illinois State Senate, Barak Obama is no Nelson Mandela. He hasn’t accomplished what Lech Walesa, Martin Luther King, or German Chancellor Willy Brandt did to win the peace prize. Arguably, he hasn’t even done as much as Vice-President Gore did to wake the world to the apocalypse of global warming. But that misses the point entirely.

The Nobel Peace Prize goes to the person who has done the most in 2009 to advance the cause of world peace. The committee judges individuals based on their contemporary significance, not on their world historical status. You don’t have to be another Dag Hammarskjöld to win a prize. It isn’t a Mother Teresa look-alike contest either.

In 2009 is there any event more significant in reducing international tensions than the change from George W. Bush to Barak Obama? Even if you do not agree with Obama’s politics, public opinion polls show overwhelming approval for Obama and his foreign policies among most of the world’s nations compared to the overwhelming disapproval of the policies of the Bush Administration. The public acclaim he received in Cairo and Berlin was truly astounding. And that matters. One could argue that all that President Obama has done is make speeches. “I have a dream” and “tear down this wall,” were only words, yet they changed the world.

Surely, transforming America’s image, committing the United States to reducing global warming, prohibiting torture, and opening dialogues with old adversaries like Iran and North Korea are momentous achievements.

OK, I admit that Obama may not belong in the same company as Martin Luther King or Linus Pauling, but that’s not the relevant question. We all get the idea that not all prize winners are created equal.

Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, and Ted Williams, were all chosen as Most Valuable Players. But so were Bob O’Farrell, Spud Chandler and Gabby Hartnett, in their respective years. No one thinks that they all played ball at the same level.

The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, On the Waterfront, and All About Eve were all chosen as Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Pictures. Incredibly, the same prize went to Titanic and Braveheart. But they were different years with different pictures in contention.

No one thinks that the tired 60’s musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was as important as Death of a Salesman, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Angels in America just because all four of them won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in their respective years.

By awarding the peace prize to President Obama the Nobel Committee was acknowledging a change in the tenor and direction of U.S. foreign policy. The United States has returned to international institutions and to our traditional alliances.

The media has reacted as if Obama is somehow tainted by his association with the Nobel Committee. Americans have often been suspicious when our statesmen are honored from abroad. When Silas Deane, the hero of my book, UNLIKELY ALLIES, was honored in 1778 by our ally Louis XVI many in Congress questioned Deane’s loyalty. Now some Americans even question President Obama’s nationality

The peace prize often is awarded to controversial figures. Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, and Menachem Begin were Nobel winners. Kissinger and Begin? Apparently, the Nobel Committee isn’t just a bunch of “Norwegian lefties.”

We should all take pride that the world has embraced our President as a symbol of American generosity and pluralistic democracy. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is America’s peace prize, too. And we deserve it.

 If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.  

Booklist called UNLIKELY ALLIES, ”A rip-roaring account of the American Revolution, told from a fresh, and undeniably offbeat, perspective.”

We are accustomed to reading histories that deify the Founding Fathers. They, after all, overthrew the world’s greatest military power to establish a republic, and they did it with rhetorical grace that even today stirs the heart. Our idealized view of the Founding Fathers obscures their failings as often as it eclipses other great American political leaders who did not have the good fortune to be alive in 1776.

I’m thinking, of course, of Senator Kennedy whose passing last week finally drew him the bipartisan praise that he had earned but was generally denied in his lifetime. Whatever one may think of his liberalism, he was a fierce and effective advocate, who nevertheless respected his colleagues on both sides and conducted himself with a civility that is as absent today from politics as it was in 1776. Ted Kennedy understood that just because a person has a different opinion about tax policy, health care, or military spending is no reason to question his patriotism, intellect, or character.

What makes Kennedy’s collegiality extraordinary is that he was constantly maligned by conservatives, including those whom he genuinely liked. For nearly a half-century, he bore all of this abuse with quiet dignity and humor.

When you consider Senator Kennedy’s monumental legislative record of accomplishment in health, labor, human rights, economic reform, and education, there are few presidents who got as much done as he did. And he did all this while winning the respect and affection of his adversaries as much as his allies.

By comparison, some of the Founding Fathers were vicious hypocrites who thought nothing of defaming their colleagues with baseless accusations and whose fiery politics alienated even members of their own party. Jefferson, for example, as vice-president arranged for the publication of outrageous lies about President John Adams. Jefferson paid someone to steal the personal papers of Silas Deane, the hero of my book UNLIKELY ALLIES.  Jefferson tried to impeach federal judges who disagreed with him. Jefferson extolled the virtues of the bloody French Revolution, and so alienated the Federalists in Congress that his election in 1800 bitterly divided the young republic.

That’s not to say that Jefferson does not deserve his place as one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the founder of the University of Virginia. But a fair-minded person could conclude that the achievements of Jefferson, like other Founding Fathers, were won despite his mean partisanship. In contrast to Jefferson, Ted Kennedy time and again reached across the aisle to heal the divisions of party.

I met Senator Kennedy only in passing at two dramatic points in his astonishing career. The first time was when I was called to testify as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee to corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations against then-Judge Clarence Thomas. Though some liberals criticized Kennedy for not taking a stronger position against Judge Thomas, they forget Kennedy’s dramatic role in those hearings. At the time, of course, the Senator was facing allegations in the press concerning his own drinking and socializing. He felt constrained by those allegations to lead the attack. But after a panel of four witnesses, myself included, testified in support of Anita Hill’s allegations, Senator Kennedy responded in a booming voice to the defamatory attacks on Anita Hill:

“…I hope, Mr. Chairman, that after this panel we are not going to hear any more comments, unworthy, unsubstantiated comments, unjustified comments about Professor Hill and perjury…I hope we are not going to hear more about fantasy stories picked out of books…I hope we can clear this room of dirt and innuendo, that has been suggested [about] Professor Hill… They are unworthy.”

That was Kennedy at his best: decrying those who used smear tactics to advance a political agenda. Throughout his long career Kennedy stood to uphold the Senate’s tradition of decorum and comity.

I met Senator Kennedy again last year at a breakfast at the home of a friend. It was only days after Senator Kennedy’s dramatic endorsement of Senator Obama for president and only months before his brain tumor was discovered. Kennedy bounded up like a eager puppy to introduce himself to all the guests – as if there were anyone on the planet who would not recognize him. His hand seemed like it was the size of a catcher’s mitt, leathery from a lifetime of sailing and shaking hands. He was excited about the young senator from Illinois whose idealism and eloquence reminded him of his own brothers. And he was determined to help pass Obama’s health insurance reform.

Kennedy spent four decades persistently and patiently working towards health reform. Perhaps he could have succeeded this year with a broad consensus of Democratic and Republican colleagues. If he were unable to win broad support, Kennedy would have pushed for reform with the votes he had, and afterward, he would have embraced his Republican colleagues and defused any hard feelings.

Kennedy’s civility is an exceedingly rare element in the summer of “death panel” Republicans and “birther” conspiracy theorists. We have lost Senator Kennedy at the moment we needed him most to escape the toxic political environment that has engulfed health insurance reform.  We need more like him.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.

Six years ago I was writing a book with that title on the history of international law in U.S. courts in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The challenge was trying to make that book interesting to a wider audience.

I was looking for a vignette to open the book that would capture the improvisational quality of foreign policy at the time of the founding of the republic. The  Founding Fathers had to invent American diplomacy on a clean slate. That’s when I discovered the story of Silas Deane.

Silas Deane was one of the more obscure Founding Fathers. He owned a dry goods store in Wethersfield, Connecticut. He had never left Connecticut in his life. He knew nothing about diplomacy, and he couldn’t speak a word of French, but Ben Franklin decided to send Deane on a secret mission in 1775 to persuade Louis XVI to arm the Americans against the British. Franklin thought that Deane was so improbable the British spies would never suspect him.

I was puzzled as to how Deane succeeded in obtaining all of the arms, ammunition, uniforms, tents, boots, hats, and blankets for an army of 30,000 men without the benefit of any credentials or cash. So I looked for a good book about Deane, but there weren’t any.

In frustration I phoned a friend of mine, David Kahn, who was the executive director of the Connecticut Historical Society at the time. I thought David could tell me how to find Deane’s letters or diaries. Perhaps there was a website or a Library of Congress publication or some other service to help my research.

To my astonishment David replied, “we own Deane’s papers.” Just a few weeks earlier David by chance had run into Deane’s papers, which were in several boxes stored away in the basement of the Connecticut Historical Society. If he hadn’t known about Deane’s papers, I would never have found them on my own.

I flew to Hartford, where coincidentally the papers were kept in a building 1000 yards from where I used to teach at the University of Connecticut Law School. I opened these boxes for the first time since who knows when and discovered letters to or from Franklin, Louis XVI, Washington, Jay, Adams, and many other Founding Fathers. The tale that they told was an incredible story of courage, patriotism, betrayal, treason, corruption, and murder. I was hooked.

I wrote a new introduction to my book, “Pirates, Slaves and Indians,” and I showed it to my sister. She told me “forget about pirates, slaves and Indians and write this book.” So I did.

I hope you like it.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.