Has anyone been watching the John Adams series on HBO? Is it historically accurate?

[greenbriar]

I totally forgot it was going to start and have missed the first couple of episodes


Can someone give me a review on it


I may need to invest in the series for my classes

[Mz Pip]

1. You can probably catch

the repeats on HBO On Demand if you have that.

I'm enjoying it. I think it gives a pretty realistic portrayal of Colonial life.

[greenbriar]

2. thanks...forgot about on demand

is it crude?

what would you rate it PG? R?

[MidwestTransplant]

3. PG for sure though maybe a touch of violence.

[mac2]

12. I read where John Adams was responsible for the uprising

in Boston against the British. He was a trouble maker and wanted the British to leave. As a rebel he did put his life and his families on the line.

[MidwestTransplant]

13. He defended the British involved in the Boston Massacre.

The show shows him initially as a hesitant participant in the independence movement.

[mac2]

14. Like the other founders they were hesitant to go against the British

and tried to get a better deal from them regarding trade, freedoms, etc. Franklin was very angry when the British treated the Indians so badly. Declaration of Independence was that demand. When that failed they decided to rebel. Adams was there in Boston to do it.

[40ozDonkey]

4. PG 13ish

Language was rather proper so I don't recall anything overly offensive, but if I remember correctly in the first episode there was a graphic tarring and feathering scene. A mob stripped a British tax collector in the street.

It was interesting though, that tarring and feathering is so old timey and abstract that I never thought to consider how terrible it would be.

[Mz Pip]

5. The first episode

had some uncomfortably violent moments. Some nudity. Probably a fairly accurate portrayal of mob violence back then.

[bluestateguy]

6. Well, I didn't know that Adams was bald as a young man

And that we wore a wig.

[mac2]

7. Don't have HBO but the RWers have been trying to make

President Adams a hero. They are out to re-write history.

When Adams was President he wanted to go to war against France. He hated the French and was jealous of Jefferson and Franklin's popularity with them. He considered them immoral and ungodly.

People would not hear of going to war with France after they just went bankrupt helping us against the British. Adams passed the Sedition Act much like the Patriot Acts to remove people's freedoms. He wanted war.

Adams once arrested a man who tried to talk to him. He felt that low level citizen was taking too much social advantage. He felt the "uneducated and lowly" did not know about government and should not make decisions about it. Only the elite few should rule. Not royals by birth but almost like them.

Jefferson ran against Adams and removed the Sedition Act almost immediately. Adams was a good rebel but not President. His son was even worse and did not want to be President but did it to keep his father happy. See any parallel between the Adams and Bush Presidents?

Read: What Would Jefferson Do? by Thom Hartmann. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/What-Would-Jefferson-Do/Thom-Hartmann/e/9781400052080/?itm=2

The History Channel even called Jefferson Irish. He was Scot-Irish which is a bit different. The Scots wanted to separate from the British tyranny. Jefferson took some of the ideas from the Scottish Treaty demanding independence and less tyranny of the British rule. The Scottish Treaty was the backbone of the Declaration of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_Day

April 6th is National Tartan Day-Scottish American day were we honor the President's of Scottish heritage who were our founders. Thirteen President's can trace their heritage back to Scottish ancestors. We also honor those Scottish Americans who have contributed so much to our democracy. Do you think the media will celebrate that event? No way. Democracy!!

They honoring Adams at a time of Scottish celebration convenient eh?

[enlightenment]

16. The Declaration of Arbroath ( 6 Apr 1320) was not the backbone

of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was certainly familiar with it, however.

The Declaration was not a demand for independence; it was a plea, sent to the Pope, to intercede on the Scots behalf in their on-going battle with the English. They did not need to separate from "British tyranny." There were an independent nation with their own king and court. Edward Longshanks wanted to change that, and tried to insist that John Balliol (who was briefly the Scots King) had sworn fealty to him. Even after the union of the crowns in 1504 (when Lizzie died and made her nephew, James VI of Scotland, king of England) Scotland did not become a political "part" of England until the dissolution of the Scottish parliament in 1707 (and one can argue how well that took, though it was the decision of the Scots, who some say were misled - which they probably were - but that's a whole other topic!) That's not to say it isn't a magnificent document and well worth reading . . . nor is it to say that it doesn't contain elements that are echoed in both our Declaration and Constitution.

But let's not get carried away.

It is definitely worth reading and discussing - particularly if you teach US history or poly sci - and contains some very powerful statements. This is my favourite (they stole some of this in that ridiculous film, Braveheart):

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Here's a link to the English translation of the Latin:
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath_english.html

[mac2]

17. Tartan Day April 6th.

"The date commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, the first known formal Declaration of independence."

For over 300 years the Scots had no representative government in their own country. The Brits gave it to them just recently. The new British Prime Minister is the first Scottish one ever. Scotland like S. Ireland was not that happy to be ruled by the British.

[enlightenment]

18. Mac, not to be rude . . .

I know what the Declaration of Arbroath is and when it was written. As a matter of fact, I just SAID that. I teach this stuff.

The Declaration of Arbroath was not in ANY sense a formal Declaration of Independence. It is sometimes referred to as one, because of the language. The fact that it uses the word "declaration" doesn't mean it was like our Declaration.

Now, think about what you just wrote after that.

"For over 300 years" - yep, from 1707, as I said.

"The Brits gave it to them recently" - actually, the Scots voted in a referendum in 1997 to reopen their own Parliament. It is not a fully devolved body, as the English (UK) Parliament has the ability to amend its powers.

"The new British Prime Minister is the first Scottish one ever." Wrong. John Stuart, Earl of Bute, was PM. George Hamilton Gordon, the Earl of Aberdeen, was PM. Arthur James Balfour was PM; Henry Campbell Bannerman; James Ramsay MacDonald . . . that's off the top of my head. They were all Scots.

"Scotland, like S. Ireland was not happy to be ruled by the Brits." Actually, that would be ALL of Ireland, not just the part that is today an Independent country (the Republic of Ireland). There was no consensus in Scotland as to whether or not they were "happy" about it. Yes, there was a lot of dissent, but there was just as many who felt it was not only acceptable, but preferred.

You seem to be interested in this topic - if you like, I'll be happy to point you to some more informative and complete sources than Wikipedia.

[bluestateguy]

26. It was Hamilton and the Federalist extremists who wanted war with France

Adams, who in fact was hated by the High Federalists, actually brokered a deal to avoid war with France at the end of his presidency.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were stupid, and Adams owned up to this in his later life.

[housewolf]

8. It's based on David McCullough's biography of John Adams

He's a renowned historian who spent some number of years researching the book. I saw an interview that Charlie Rose did with him and he's thrilled with the production, feels that it's very authentic and historically accurate.

I'm enjoying it and learning a lot from it, although, admittedly, some of it is a little hard to take. Life was pretty violent and mean back in those days...

I hope you'll watch it, it's really very good.

[mac2]

15. Charlie Rose never had Thom Hartmann on his program

about the Jefferson and Adam's clash. Hartmann wrote an excellant book about Jefferson and his struggle to bring modern democracy to the new democracy.

Hartmanns' book series about our founders, politics, etc. ranks with Sinclair Lewis.

[Lex]

9. A couple of previous GD threads about it here (with reviews etc)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3019573

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3051160

[ToeBot]

10. Accurate? Maybe from Adams perspective.

The series portrays events and conditions in a way sympathetic to Adams' point of view. Not having read McCullough's original treatment, I can't say where the bias originates. I wouldn't call it objective, not by a long shot.

As an aside, do you suppose Franklin was intentionally losing that chess game?

[mac2]

11. By the re-write historians it is accurate.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Franklin intentionally losing a chess game?

You mean, "let the nookie win?" :D

[ThomWV]

19. 2 things

In the first two episodes, which both ran the first night, they comingled John and Sam Adams to some extent, attributing to John a lot of pro-revolution activity that was actually done by Sam. That was understandable and didn't do much to harm the program. The second thing, from what I've read Jefferson and Adams hated each other, and that relationship is not represented (so far) in the program.

[KG]

20. no. John Adams actually had a chin.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. His son Charlie wasn't born during the Boston Massacre

And they had the same actors playing his children from the Boston Massacre to the end of the Revolution.

But it is rather faithful to the book, and the book is top-notch. As a dramatic introduction to the topic, it's rather good. And it's much more accurate than things like Shakespearian history plays. But there are mistakes introduced for the needs of a dramatic storyline. It would be a great example of the difference between solid historical research (McCullough's book) and dramatic interpretation (the miniseries).

[bean fidhleir]

23. Unless they show him as a half-Tory, it's not accurate

Like Hamilton, he was a serious anti-democratic elitist. As president, he created the Sedition Act that imprisoned newspaper editors for saying mean things about his government, he was the original "imperial president", and he was the one who prompted Jefferson's comment about the "reign of witches".

The best thing about him was that Abigail married him.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. They showed him flirting with an imperial appointment after the Massacre trial.

(Although technically, I think the book showed that offered to him well before the trial.)

[bean fidhleir]

28. In the excellent book "From the Folks who Brought You the Weekend"

illustrator Joe Sacco labels him as "that ostensible patriot and future US president" and notes that in court he called the Americans "a motley Rabble of saucy Boys, Negroes and Mulattoes, Irish Teagues and outlandish Jack Tars"

[-..__...]

24. The French royal court scenes are creepy.

They look like corpses or something out of "The Twilight Zone" where all the store mannequins come to life.

[bluestateguy]

25. The aging of the kids is suspicious

I watched part one on OnDemand last night. It starts in 1770 when Nabby was 5, JQA was 3 and Charles was an infant. Yet Nabby looks to be about 10 (she could maybe pass for 7), JQA looks to be about 8 and Charles looks like he's about 5.