John Adams: One cool dude

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben Franklin .

One of our most important founding fathers. Just because he wasn't that much of a politician should not dilute his impact. There is, after all, a reason that he graces the $100 bill.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Didn't John Adams have the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed? If his legacy had endured America would be a very different country today. It's hard to believe that a man so seemingly bigoted and intolerant would have taken up the Amistaad case.

I havent gotten up to the A and S acts - but it wasnt John Adams alone, it was the whole Federalist party, of which Adams was more moderate than folks like Hamilton.

Im up to 1780, and Adams certainly doesnt appear bigoted and intolerant. He has a more conservative view of society than Jefferson - he sees man as naturally fallible, and is less inclined to see man as perfectible - and hes more traditionally religious, if not trinitarian - but hes still broadly liberal.

Hes also deeply opposed to slavery from very early on - and unlike Jefferson, hes not a practitioner at all. Also unlike Jefferson, he doesnt live his life in debt. Also unlike Jefferson, he is largely a selfmade man - the son of a Braintree farmer/cobbler, who made his way as a Harvard trained lawyer - he inherited less than 100 (stony, swampy, wooded) acres from his father, while Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres.

Hes not only the leading patriot figure in Congress in 1775 and 1776 (where Jefferson and Franklin were largely silent) hes administratively important - hes VERY deep in commitee work, he is virtually SecDefense in his role in the war board, and he pushes hard for a continental navy.

It was also largely his doing that Washington was made head of the Continental Army.


As far his role in Paris, to his credit he largely backed up Franklin, and had a role in the dismissal of Arthur Lee. While I suspect that there was little to gain from his more blustery diplomacy, i think there was less to lose than Franklin made out - French strategy was based on French interests, not the personalities of the American diplomats. Vergennes pushed him out on his second round, but Vergennes was playing his own games.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I havent gotten up to the A and S acts - but it wasnt John Adams alone, it was the whole Federalist party

Yes, but he did sign the bill at the end. And Adams did push for it. For one, he thought it would stop Jefferson.

Though he did a lot of good things (one you didn't mention was not allowing the XYZ Affair and the Quasi-War with France to turn into a full blown war, like his party wanted), the Alien and Sedition Acts fall on his legacy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Sam Adams was pretty much responsible / to blame for the American Revolution. He was the driving force behind the Liberty Tree Boys. Without his obsessive, almost psychotic, rabble rousing conflict between the British and the colonists may never have intensified to the point of war.

But that also made the revolution look like Boston rabble rousing to the other colonies. Theres a very good reason that from 1774, when Massachusetts looks to the other colonies for support, John Adams role increases, and Sam Adams role declines.

Also, ISTR reading that Sam Adams WAS something of a Christian bigot.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I havent gotten up to the A and S acts - but it wasnt John Adams alone, it was the whole Federalist party

(one you didn't mention was not allowing the XYZ Affair and the Quasi-War with France to turn into a full blown war, like his party wanted), the Alien and Sedition Acts fall on his legacy.

i dont mention XYZ for the same reason i dont mention A and S - im only up to 1780, and i want to base this discussion on my reading of this bio, not my vague memories of Ellis and my impressions from general histories.

Adams ALSO wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, virtually singlehandedly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
McCullough did American history a terrible disservice by writing such an engaging biography of Adams. Adams is vastly overrated -- a timid revolutionary (especially compared to cousin Sam), .

Loking at his career in the 1770s, he hardly seems timid. His role was different than Sam's but I think just as important.

Certianly, if you think Adams was timid in the 1770s, what do you say of Jefferson, who is far more timid than Adams prior to 1776?

[lord of the mark]

as Thomas Jefferson said of J Adams role in the congressional debates of 1775-1776

"His powers of thought and expression moved us from out seats"

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Loking at his career in the 1770s, he hardly seems timid. His role was different than Sam's but I think just as important.

Certianly, if you think Adams was timid in the 1770s, what do you say of Jefferson, who is far more timid than Adams prior to 1776?

I'd say the same of Jefferson -- timid in action, absolutely. The revolution's spark was struck by men like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, not John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

But Jefferson was a major intellectual figure of the new nation -- matched only by Hamilton and Madison -- and a very good president as well, which redeems his negligible role in the revolution. Not so Adams.

[Provost Harrison]

Re: John Adams: One cool dude

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ive been reading the David McCullough biog of our second president.

Really like this guy. Very sharp, fierce integrity - had the nerve to defend the British troops after the Boston "massacre". Nuanced positions, yet full of passion. Wasnt aware of his key role on the Board of War (congress military committee) in the months after July 1776.

Abigail Adams was cool too. Strong woman, almost proto-feminist.

Note for Molly Bloom - did you know that Judge Sewall, of Salem witch trial fame, wrote an attack on slavery in 1700, years before Wilburforce?

Do not diss the Wilberforce! He was from Hull

[Zkribbler]

A&S put Jefferson in an interesting position. Marberry v. Madison had not yet been decided...so what do you do with a law that's unconstitutional?? Jefferson simply refused to enforce it (it was later rescinded.)

Recently, the Mayor of San Francisco attempted to do the same thing with the law banning gay marriage. Chief Justice George [in a well written decision] ripped his head off. Declaring something unconstitutional is the sole province of the courts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it was later rescinded.

More accurately, it was allowed to elapse. The Alien and Sedition Acts ended on 1800, to be renewed if need be. They were not renewed since the Democratic-Republicans were firmly in power.

[Ted Striker]

Re: Re: John Adams: One cool dude

Originally posted by molly bloom



Note for lord of the mark- did you know that judges in England declared that no one could be a slave in England, well before Wilberforce ?

Lord Chief Justice Holt:

' No man can have property in another... there is no such thing as a slave by the laws of England.'

1706

In 1707 he reiterated:

'As soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes a free man.'

Salkeld's Reports, Vol. 11, p.666


There's a world of difference between having the legal decisions and having them implemented- and opposing slavery in 1700 didn't seem to do much to eradicate it in the colonies, did it ?


Still, I'm sure his heart was in the right place.

Interestingly enough, the Society For The Propagation Of The Christian Gospel ran sugar plantations in Barbados, making sure that people would know who their slaves were by branding their skin with the word 'Society' .

God is love, indeed.

My favorite character in Amistad was the British sea captain. I loved the way he talked down to the attorney in the courtroom, sortof lecturing him like a little kid that didn't know better.

Then when the redcoats landed on that island and the Captain ordered his navy to start blasting the hell out of that slave fortress, MAN, that was one of the best moments in movies.

That character RULED, defintley a fist pounding moment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[the slave fortress in Sierra Leone is being bombarded from sea]

Captain Fitzgerald: Fire. Fire. Fire. Take a letter, Ensign. To His Honor, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Forsyth. My dear Mr. Forsyth, it is my great pleasure to inform you that you are, in fact, correct. The slave fortress in Sierra Leone does not exist.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118607/quotes

[RGBVideo]

just some notes

Riiight. Because convincing the French to come into the war on the side of the colonists didn't really matter all that much. And negotiating the Treaty of Paris? Of what possible importance could that be?

Ben Franklin was the country's first effective diplomat

Riiight. Because convincing the French to come into the war on the side of the colonists didn't really matter all that much. And negotiating the Treaty of Paris? Of what possible importance could that be?

The idea that Franklin somehow, using his personal power, argued France to join somekind of crusade for freedom along the US seems to be dominating here. Not so, France would've allied against England even if the US would've sent a bouncing cucumber to ask for help: taking colonies from the grasp of England, it's main opponent at the time, was France's national interest. Believing that Franklin was required for the job is funny if you consider the French history. I dare any of you to find a single French foreign or war policy decision after the 17th century where the influence of diplomacy would've or could've changed the realpolitik, "France (or "Frenchmen", if they've led by leftists) First!" -line, always taken by the French goverment. It's very odd to give some sort of praise for Franklin for having a non-job for around ten years.

One of our most important founding fathers. Just because he wasn't that much of a politician should not dilute his impact. There is, after all, a reason that he graces the $100 bill.

Ah yes, just like the other great heroes in your bills, such as Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant .

He was also our first inventor/scientist. He was a pioneer in the fields of meteorology and electricity. He developped inventions still in use today, such as the lightning rod and the Franklin stove.

Here's a hint: Stop taking Wikipedia articles as Truth. They're the mean (as in "arithmetic", not as in "nasty") opinions of the portion of the US population which uses the Internet.

Edit:

WTF is your point, exactly?

That the historical knowledge of Americans is based on few heroes who are appointed by hype? Just look at the OP: "I've read praise about this guy from a blatantly biased source, now I think he's cool and deserves more attention".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I'd say the same of Jefferson -- timid in action, absolutely. The revolution's spark was struck by men like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, not John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

But Jefferson was a major intellectual figure of the new nation -- matched only by Hamilton and Madison -- and a very good president as well, which redeems his negligible role in the revolution. Not so Adams.

I think you underestimate the importance of events in Congress. I would also point out that Adams newspaper articles DID play a role in Massachusetts, before 1774.

I have not gotten up to their terms in office. My impression is that historians are not so impressed by Jeffersons embargo acts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah yes, just like the other great heroes in your bills, such as Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant

Are you saying that Jackson and Grant weren't heroes in American history? I suggest you read up on the Battle of New Orleans and the American Civil War.

Here's a hint: Stop taking Wikipedia articles as Truth.

Um... it actually is the truth, whether or not Wikipedia states it.

Ben Franklin was quite an important figure in the early American republic. He was as vital as Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton.