Posted on 03/19/2008 6:01:31 AM PDT by rellimpank
A government is not a person. How can it be libeled?
Franklin was too full of himself as the wise old man to direct matters, Jefferson strong but not as influential then as he would be. Washington? It absolutely wasn't his nature to instruct others politically. Only Adams (like William Wilberforce on the slavery issue in England) could keep the political positions in front of everyone at all times.
He had a lot of faults as president: He continued to pay tribute to the Barbaries---but at the same time began building a large-scale navy to defeat them, which Jefferson got credit for. He favored England, but really didn't side with either England or France officially. The Alien and Sedition Acts were reasonable, in my view, but of course would be struck down in a democracy. Government under Adams didn't grow nearly as much as it did under TJ, even per capita.
But he also was uncompromising, even when it would be sensible and, in the long run, helpful to be conciliatory to one's enemies. Mercy and charity were not Biblical principles he had at the top of his list.
He is one of the best actors: he was great in Cinderella Man, American Splendor, and The Illusionist. For one thing, unfortunately, he plays Adams, an 18th Century New Englander, in the same way, and with the same accent and delivery as he did Joe Gould, a depression era fight promoter, in Cinderella Man. The effect for me is jarring; it just doesn't fit.
Thanks.
This is very tangential, but as a historian, don’t you think he was done nicely in the musical 1776? As I’ve learned some history, it has surprised me how many lines in that musical are lifted directly from historical documents.
What I don’t like is the constant blasphemy. My understanding is that folks like Adams would not have taken God’s and Christ’s name in vain so freely.
But those references are quite consistent with Deism, particularly the equation of Nature and God. The 18th Century “pulpit”, that Franklin refers to was more reminiscent of Jonathon Edwards and Cotton Mather, and as such quite opposed to enlightenment concepts like the notion that we were endowed by our creator with inalienable rights.
I sort of have to agree on Giamatti seeming a little too 20th century urbanite. But his intelligence does still shine through and makes the performance watchable.
I appreciate the deist view and the attempt to be non-sectarian. However that doesnt explain away what Franklin wanted removed and what remained as being too ‘pulpity’ as in the movie. There is alot of compromise in language in the Declaration part of which was the language pertaining to property and others pertaining to religion, however to leave a statment hanging that it was too pulpity would leave the viewer to believe that religion had little to no part in the continental congress or of the documents that they created. I guess I just feel that the term ‘too pulpity’ leaves too negative of an impression and the entirity of the debate within Jefferson and with Franklin and Adams could have been better expanded upon, even if it was a show about Adams.
Franklyn, 82 and infirm, made a rare floor speech at the Constitution Convention on June 28, 1787, calling for prayer to break a convention deadlock. Franklyn urged delegates submit humbly “to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding.” He said, “the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And, if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without his aid?”
Can anyone deny that this country was founded by divinely inspired men???
The original point of libel laws was to defend private individuals from having their character defamed in print, on the presumption that few private individuals had the financial means to defend their reputation against a publishing concern.
The government has the resources to defend its reputation in the court of public opinion.
Moreover, there is a conflict of interest when the government, as the offended party, is also the prosecutor and judge.
Finally, there is no bright line between expressing an opinion and making a factual claim. Language is fluid. It is better to err on the side of presuming opinion, in order to give freer rein to free speech.
You might want to check your sources. Jefferson and Hamilton, but primarily Jefferson, started the partisanship during Washington's administration. Jefferson was always messing around in the background trying to get the US to take the side of the French radicals against the British and even had surrogates trashing Washington in an attempt to force him to change his stance on neutrality.
Adams, like Washington, had little use for partisan politics. As president, Adams managed to piss off both sides because he would not give into to either of their demands.
Adams did not have the temperament to be a politician. He was far too blunt and stubborn to play political games.
Well, a government certainly doesn’t have a reputation the way a person does. However, it is possible to make a false and malicious statement about a government.
but three years later he wrote (in an admittedly circuitous fashion, and a mere month before he died) to Ezra Stiles that he didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and found that state supported religion invariably corrupted the essence of moral teachings, which were the best aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethos:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....”
You're right: Adams didn't try to load the courts with Federalist judges up until the eve of Jefferson's inauguration; there were no such thing as Midnight Judges. I guess the facts that brought about Marbury v. Madison were complete fiction.
No political games there!
I'll have to find a way to see this mini-series, as I don't get HBO. Can't see paying 10 bucks a month to not watch it. I don't get that much TV time, and when I do, it's usually some of the CBS shows, Smallville, and the History channel. Not the TV watcher I used to be....
I've been quite busy, except for the past 2 weeks. Doing project work for NCR, and I spent most of my time in November, December, and part of January in California and Arizona, with some trips to Wisconsin, Texas, and Michigan thrown in just to make it interesting. Upcoming work will be a little closer to home (Ohio), although there could be some more West Coast work to fill in gaps in the schedule. I've gotten quite adept at the "airport shuffle", and have actually racked up some frequent flyer miles, although not enought to get a ticket yet.
Big news is my wife is going on a once-in-a-lifetime jaunt to China, Japan, and Australia in September as the guest of the vice-president of Hilton hotels, who is the daughter-in-law of my wife's close friend. I'm not going, as I will be working, but she is going with my blessing because it's an opportunity she may never have again, and I don't want her to miss it. I wish I could go, but there was only room for one. I hope she brings back some great pics, and some cool stuff, though.
My best to you and yours!
“... when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....””
sounds like he was ready and open to the final verdict
Wow, sounds exciting. My “big” trip this year is down to New Orleans. Going there in April on a missions trip. We’ll be helping to rebuild a house. Much of the area is still devastated.
We only got HBO because of my son’s “work” on the series. We’ll likely let it go after the series is done.
My only “must watch” show is LOST. Used to be 24 also, before Jack jumped the shark.
2. Agree to a point. Franklin was something of a "deist," although in practice he seemed far closer to a Christian---praying repeatedly, putting God at the center of all activities---than perceived at first blush. Others, however, were pretty foul.
BTW, Rush just now talking about “John Adams” on his show, making the point that Adams stood firm and made everyone come to his position.
Factionalism is not bad. You do not get a pearl, save for friction.
BTW, to confirm your view of Adams, he left Washington before TJ's inauguration, not out of disgust, but relief to finally be out. It brings to mind Washington's comment to him as he stepped down, "I am rightly out, and you are rightly in. Let's see which of us is the happiest."
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.