But the episode brought to light something equally lamentable about Adams - pertaining to his family not his country. Charles, the reprobate son, is disowned by John Adams. His son-in-law is turned away when in financial need. It's not that our culture was so different then. It's that John Adams could not overcome his stern New England upbringing, and give his son the love and emotional support, his son-in-law the economic support, that they needed. John Adams meted out punishment instead - just as he did to his country by jeopardizing the First Amendment and its protections.
It's a measure of how superb Paul Giamatti's performance is as John Adams, that we feel anything akin to sympathy for the second President and father at all. Giamatti is just perfect for summoning the pain and humanity that one hopes Adams felt for these actions. It convinced me enough that I called them "lamentable," rather than despicable, in the paragraph above.
As I've said in previous reviews of this series, this is history on television on an entirely new, breathtaking plane.
The series concludes with the next episode.
How about a series about Thomas Jefferson, played by the outstanding Stephen Dillane.
See also: John Adams on HBO: Good Founding Father, Bad President ... John Adams 3 and 4: Jefferson and Space Travel of the Soul ... 5. Jousting of Ideas ... John Adams Concludes
Further reading ...
The Flouting of the First Amendment - my 2005 Keynote Address at Fordham University, in which I talk about the vying opinions of John Adams v. Thomas Jefferson...
The Soft Edge: A Natural History and the Future of the Information Revolution - my 1998 book, with more details on this time in history, and the roles of Adams and Jefferson
And ...
10 comments:
Paul -- this series makes you appreciate the foresight and hard work of those early men who forged our country. i agree with your earlier assessment of John Adams: great founding father, not so great president.
btw, if John Adams were alive and kicking it around Washington DC, who would he resemble the most?
Dick Cheney???
nice job on the forum,
/jimy_max
Thanks, jimy_max, and good question.
Certainly Adams would resemble a lot of people in Washington today, in their and his disrespect for the First Amendment, and their and his admiration for strong central government.
Cheney would be a good choice - though his ethical problems might make him more like Hamilton and than Adams.
Maybe Chuck Hagel would be most like Adams...
I'm loving this series and have yet to catch this weeks episode though hope to do so tomorrow, or at midnight this evening.
This week's episode is a masterpiece, Cooper. I wish I could see it for the first time, again...
I thought the episode could have been a lot better. I liked it. But it left out John Adams most important impact on our country: the lame-duck appointment of John Marshall as chief justice. I was really looking forward to that scene and it did not happen. I think you know which one I am talking about: 'I think I shall choose you!'
I would like to see a series based on the book, "What kind of Nation" which was a double bio of Tom Jefferson and John Marshall.
Good point about Marshall, jp - I also missed any reference to him as Chief Justice.
But the rest was so powerful, I still think the episode was a masterpiece of television.
These differences in reaction are based on our favorite facets of history. The scene with Jefferson and Adams and the election of 1800 was priceless, for me.
Thanks for the info, Anna - good to know that Washington's teeth aren't just rattling around somewhere in a dusty bin...
I thought there is also a pair at mt. vernon.
Regarding Adams' disrespect for the First Amendment, Adams was faced with the first possibility of espionage and warfare after the foundation of the U.S. and these new "inalienable rights" presented a very real conundrum in the functional defense and management of a country: Does one choose untried, theoretical idealism over the defensive needs of you people? What's more, even the classification of "citizen" was undefined at that point.
Adams made the best, albeit sad decision, that he could in a political environment that is not at all like our current one.
We have other options, we are now an established nation with a broader understanding of what these rights mean...they, then, were not.
Not a fair comparison.
You're missing the point, anon: The First Amendment was part of the supreme law of the land - The Constitution - which had just been ratified by the states, in large part due to the Bill of Rights (of the First Amendment was the First).
No President had the right - then or now - to trample on that law.
Not "theoretical idealism" - but the Supreme Law of the land. Do you not the see the difference?
Post a Comment