Posted on 07/06/2013 8:03:29 AM PDT by VitacoreVision
John Adams did one thing which was indispensible — he followed George Washington. Being who he was, Adams snarked and sniped about Washington in at least one of his letters to Abigail.
He also was attorney for the British soldiers who fired during the Boston Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Trials
Alien and Sedition Acts
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adams-passes-first-of-alien-and-sedition-acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
https://www.google.com/search?q=Alien%20and%20Sedition%20Acts
Thanks for posting this. Adams was a great man. It is a real shame he was a Unitarian.
Yes, one down fall of John Adams was the “Alien and Sedition Act,” but you also had people who aligned themselves with the French Jacobins who were threatening a French-style Bloody Revolution in America.
Wikipedia: Reign of Terror
The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794), also known simply as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of “enemies of the revolution”. The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris), and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.
He may have fought for the Revolution as a conservative, he ruled as a liberal. (Alien and Sedition Acts)
Quote: He may have fought for the Revolution as a conservative, he ruled as a liberal. (Alien and Sedition Acts)
One of the cable channels just replayed the series, "John Adams" on the 4th. My wife and I followed the original broadcast closely with our pocket Constitution in hand, along with the laptop to verify his journal, publications, and private letters. It was the best interpretation I've seen as how the Revolution came about and his part in it.
If you want a somewhat historical account of why and how the colonists rebelled against The Crown of England, this is as good as any, even with some dramatic license.
I wonder how many know that he and his comrade in later years, died on the same day on Independence Day, the 4th, 1826. I'm not a fatalist, but you have to admit what a coincidence for our two most influential politicians at the time to die within 5 hours apart.
As for George Washington, he was a soldier and following orders and did his job in an exemplary fashion and pretty much won the war. But he didn't start the fight, he simply accepted the request to lead the Continental Army.
The lead politicians at the time were: Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Jay, Washington to a lessor extent, and Hamilton. Of course there were many more like Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, John Hancock et al, who were more outspoken during the first Continental Convention than other delegates. Sure there's some great stories there.
But the first 7 made our nation happen against even some delegates who still wanted to continue to negotiate with the Crown. Remember, it wasn't unanimous. Some didn't want to risk there life and livelihood against England, others just didn't care that much.
Feel free to correct the above if I'm wrong. It's been awhile.
A division of labor society is necessary for economic progress, which is necessary for increasing prosperity. The division of labor society depends on the institution of economic equality, insofar as the latter results from the process of economic competition.
I took a test once and it asked who are the Three people you would like to meet.
I said
John Adams
Dr. Arm and Hammer
Ross Perot
For John Adams, he took on the most powerful man of his time, Ben Franklin over the logo the the new USA, Adams wanted an Eagle and Franklin wanted the Turkey.
Adams won and we have the Bald Eagle.
True, but unconstitutionally so. He also was a big supporter of the federal bank, a Hamiltonian liberal.
Regarding the egalitarian’s dream regarding “the natural equality” of all human beings, Adams is dismissive.
A division of labor society is necessary for economic progress, which is necessary for increasing prosperity. The division of labor society depends on the institution of economic inequality, insofar as the latter results from the process of economic competition.
I think John Quincy Adams the more the interesting...and his pal Charles Dickens. To fill out my trio maybe Ayn Rand or Issac Newton.
Two of the first seven Presidents served only one term and they were both named Adams.
Being the passionate hot-head that was Adams, he probably sniped more that once. I remember he got peeved at Franklin when he went to France to see how Franklin's negotiations were advancing for French support. Franklin was a celebrity there, and Adams being the pragmatist had little patience for the French Court and Franklin's refined diplomacy. History shows that Franklin won out because of the French fleet showing up at Yorktown, which ended the war.
"He also was attorney for the British soldiers who fired during the Boston Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Trials"
Yes, most people don't know that Adams was a loyalist at first. It took some time, but after enough abuses by the Crown, he found his way to be one of the most outspoken delegates for revolt. Not sure, but I think it was Lexington or Concord that changed his mind.
Does the above make me one of those ultra-patriots that the DHS and ABC agencies think I'm a domestic problem? If so, I don't care any longer. I'm 63 and know what made this the greatest example of individual freedom the world has ever seen. And I also know what our politicians are doing to diminish that.
Screw socialism, communism, totalitarianism and every one who believes in such systems that never work. Oh, and screw Bambi for supporting the above. Egypt has had their fill of Islamic totalitarianism and threw out their Muslim Brotherhood supporting president. Wish we would do the same.
Having read some of the writings of both, I can imagine Adams and Paine had some serious differences of opinion on religion, too.
I never saw John Adams as a “conservative” at least in my research of him as the President he became. He struck me as very much an individual bent on expanding federal power. He like most Presidents had his strengths and weaknesses and for some their strengths were their weaknesses. Thomas Jefferson’s reluctance to utilize his position to strengthen the very principles of limited government he believed left the door open for great expanses that could’ve been cauterized before they had a chance to grow.
John Adams struck me as less prone to anger version of Alexander Hamilton though they hated each other interestingly enough. Forgive me my incredulity but I no more find Adams a model of conservatism than I do Teddy Roosevelt though I respect them both they both were about growing Federal power in ways that were not conservative or constitutional at all.
I saw the HBO series as well. Excellent presentation.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were his downfall.
"If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be." -- Yogi Berra
I've long said that if the left ever achieved their utopia, they would be the ones to suffer most. No one would need them, no one would be dependent on them, and there would be no place for their controlling mentality. they'd have no work to do and no job to perform. They might be able to flip burgers in their utopia. Maybe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.