Posted on 03/24/2008 9:07:10 AM PDT by Clemenza
Exchange: HBO's 'John Adams' (Part 3) Two scholars of early U.S. history debate the high-profile miniseries with its writer.
John Patrick Diggins, Kirk Ellis, and Steven Waldman , The New Republic Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
HBO's seven-part miniseries, John Adams, based on David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize-winning book about America's second president, premiered last weekend. The New Republic asked historian John Patrick Diggins and author Steven Waldman to critique the series. Click here to see their discussion of Parts 1 and 2. This week, Kirk Ellis, the series' writer and co-executive producer, will be joining the discussion. Below, Waldman kicks off the discussion with his thoughts on last night's airing of Part 3. Click here to see Diggins's response. Stay tuned for Ellis's response.
Dear Jack and Kirk,
The next time my wife complains that I'm spending too much time at the office, I'm going to say, "Well, at least I'm better than John Adams!"
As the HBO series reminds us, John Adams spent more years apart from his wife than together during this era. Worst of all, several of his overseas years were spent being utterly useless. HBO certainly takes the position that Adams' presence in Paris only complicated Benjamin Franklin's ability to negotiate French support for the year, a view that seems to be echoed by most historians.
It's always amazed me how much of early American politics was determined by whether you were a Francophile or an Anglophile. Of course, at this particular moment--the outset of the war--everyone was for seeking French aid, but that didn't mean they had to like the French. This series nicely captures Adams' disgust for the French's prurient ways--including, most deliciously, the scene of Ben Franklin in the bathtub with his French mistress. (In case you were wondering if HBO would find some way of getting sex into even a show about John Adams, the answer is: "Yes.")
This is as good an excuse as any to mention an aspect of Adams that is invariably ignored (and is ignored in the HBO series, too): his antagonism toward Catholicism. Adams disliked France not only because they powdered their faces and wore frilly clothes; he also disliked them for being Catholic. He believed it unlikely that a Catholic country could nurture a true Republic. "Is there any instance of a Roman Catholic monarchy of five and 20 million at once converted into a free and rational people?" he once asked Dr. Joseph Priestley, a philosopher and Francophile. "No, I know of no instance like it." Writing to Jefferson in 1816 about a recent revival of the Catholic order of the Jesuits, Adams wrote, "This Society has been a greater Calamity to Mankind than the French Revolution or Napoleans Despotism or Ideology. It has obstructed the Progress of Reformation and the Improvements of the human Mind in Society much longer and more fatally."
It's hard to recognize freedom's champion in this letter to his wife Abigail in which he describes a visit to St. Mary's Catholic Church in Philadelphia. His pen dripping with contempt and pity, Adams catalogues the repellant customs: "The poor wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin, not a word of which they understood, Their holy Water--their Crossing themselves perpetually--their Bowing to the Name of Jesus, whererever they hyertit--their Bowings, and Kneelings, and Genuflections before the Altar."
In fact, one of the causes of the revolution was the Quebec Act, which gave religious protections to Catholics in Canada. This infuriated the colonists. "Does not your blood run cold to think that an English Parliament should pass an Act for the establishment of arbitrary power and Popery in such an extensive country?" wrote Alexander Hamilton. "Your loves, your property, your religion are all at stake." Sam Adams told a group of Mohawk Indians that the law would mean that "some of your children may be induced instead of worshipping the only true God, to pay his dues to images made with their own hands." Fortunately, George Washington realized that it would undermine the colonists' efforts to win support from Canada and France if they were perceived as being anti-Catholic, so he banned the "monstrous" practice of burning effigies of the pope on "Pope Day."
Later in life, Adams admitted to being a bit rash in his anti-Catholic judgments, but I believe (and argue in Founding Faith) that we have not paid close enough attention to the anti-Catholic sentiment as a factor in the revolution.
But otherwise I found Part 3 to be fascinating and well done! Since we have Kirk Ellis from HBO here with us, I'd actually like him to respond to our posts about the first two parts, most especially our sense that the shows didn't quite fully capture the more legitimate reasons why these men rebelled.
And I'd personally be interested in hearing how they figured out what kinds of accents to give each figure.
Well, one thing you left out. When the opposite side took power briefly (Oliver Cromwell/Commonwealth) they were just as authoritarian as those others you criticized for being so.
Except, of course, that Adams and the Framers looked to Switzerland as an important example of a successful republic. And Switzerland was an entirely Catholic country for the first three centuries of its republican system.
And France had a republic before any of the major Protestant European countries, with the exception of Holland.
Check out one of my responses in 33. It pertains to this issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990710/posts?page=33#33
“Yes, but the Catholic minority of Maryland was quite influential still...”
Oh yes, that's why Catholics couldn't hold office, had restrictions on land ownership, could not have public Masses, etc. Quite influential, quite influential.
If by “quite influential,” you mean “not entirely snuffed out,” I'd guess that's not too far from the truth. But it literally took the Revolution and the formation of the United States for Catholics to regain their civil rights in Maryland.
“...a free Maryland would have been expected to be a place for subsequent Catholic immigration to the new Republic - which it was.”
Not really. Maryland has never been much more than 25% Catholic, in SPITE of being founded as a refuge for Catholics. Points north drew far more Catholic immigrants than Maryland ever did.
sitetest
Unfortunately, we only caught Part 3. We were busy at the end of the week, and missed seeing the first two parts. Then, last night, at midnight, our free preview ran out. We’ll just have to wait until Netflix has it on DVD. ;o) I also wanted to read McCullough’s book again before I watched the whole series.
“They were, but Catholics were greatly influential in the colony and were represented at the signing of the Declaration.”
Only one Catholic signed the Declaration, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, out of four Maryland signers. This wasn't an over-representation of the Catholic population of Maryland at the time. Carroll represented Maryland IN SPITE of his Catholicism, not because of it.
sitetest
Enjoyed the first two episodes of this series.
Some notes:
When independence was being debated someone blurted out ‘GD the King’
John Adams mentioned that achieving independence meant ‘Hope’ for the future.
A number of times while watching, it seemed that the ‘control’ and ‘taxation’ that the colonists resisted against has come back in modern American times!
I believe Pennsylvania was the most hospitable colony for Catholics and members of other unpopular faiths.
PA and Rhode Island (aka Rogue’s Island) were the most religiously tolerant, due to the former’s Quaker and latters Secular orientations.
Every November, Boston celebrated "Pope's Day" when effigies of the Pope and the devil were burned. I kid you not.
Colonial New Englanders were Cromwell's children, and attitudes towards Catholics were similar to what they were in Protestant Ulster or Scotland.
More here.
But you've only got to go back fifty years or so to see that Protestants and Catholics weren't alway's pals in the US or the rest of the world. Heck, some of the threads in the religion section might give you a clue about that.
Nor was anti-Catholic feeling confined to benighted conservatives. Paul Blanshard, the leading anti-Catholic of the day had been a socialist and an editor at the Nation magazine.
In other words, you are telling me that Maryland was more than 25% Catholic, while another poster is informing me that they were less than 8% of the MD population.
Which was it?
A colony whose government was rabidly anti-Catholic would surely not allow a Catholic to represent them in the Continental Congress - unless those who supported resistance and independence in the colony were precisely those colonists who were less bigoted against Catholics than the colony's general population.
In that there were only four signers of the Declaration from Maryland, it would be hard for someone to represent quite precisely 8% of the population. I don't know that the Catholic population of Maryland at that time was that low. Today, it's a little less than a quarter of the population.
But Mr. Carroll wasn't a signer of the Declaration because of the colony's acceptance of an "influential" Catholic minority. LOL.
Charles Carroll's entry into the revolutionary politics of the day was done IN SPITE of the fact that he was disqualified from holding office in the colony of Maryland, and his subsequent success in revolutionary (and post-revolutionary) politics was a result of his own outstanding personal attributes, that OVERCAME the deep, anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred of Maryland Protestants.
“A colony whose government was rabidly anti-Catholic would surely not allow a Catholic to represent them in the Continental Congress - unless those who supported resistance and independence in the colony were precisely those colonists who were less bigoted against Catholics than the colony's general population.”
It was quite literally his own personal example that caused his fellow Marylanders to elect him IN SPITE of their deep anti-Catholic bigotry. It was because of his singular political and personal gifts that the citizens of the colony actually elected him to represent them, in violation of Maryland's Catholic-hating laws that were actually in force at the time of his election.
sitetest
That's my point - if MD had an 8% Catholic population, Catholics were radically overrepresented at the Continental Congress.
It was quite literally his own personal example that caused his fellow Marylanders to elect him IN SPITE of their deep anti-Catholic bigotry.
In other words, Carroll's personal conduct - and not any prejudices about his religion - were the deciding factor in his selection as one of the four representatives of MD to the Continental Congress.
So anti-Catholic bigotry was not the impetus or the motivation for the independence movement.
If it were, Carroll would never have been allowed anywhere near the Continental Congress.
Without doubt you are correct and I believe that sense of DUTY and sacrifice remained in our nation's ethos although in a somewhat diminished capacity up until 1960, give or take a few years.
Since then however, duty & sacrifice have been replaced by entitlement and selfishness with honor becoming a foreign and nebulous concept!
“That's my point - if MD had an 8% Catholic population, Catholics were radically overrepresented at the Continental Congress.”
When numbers are as low as these (four representatives), it's not useful to characterize holding one of them as “radically overrepresented.”
“So anti-Catholic bigotry was not the impetus or the motivation for the independence movement.”
I didn't say that it was. I merely differed with you here:
“They were, but Catholics were greatly influential in the colony and were represented at the signing of the Declaration.”
Catholics were not greatly influential in the colony at the time of the Revolution.
- They weren't permitted to hold elected office (and Charles Carroll's tenure in the Continental Congress was actually a conscious exception to an otherwise well-enforced law);
- It was illegal to say Mass in public (for a while, it was illegal to say Mass at all, but the Catholic-hating Protestants relented and permitted private Masses);
- It was possible to lose custody of one's children for the crime of being Catholic;
- In order to rid the colony of the last vestiges of Catholicism, there were periodic attempts to seize the property of clergy (the Church herself had no property, as it was specifically illegal for the Catholic Church to own property in pre-independence Maryland);
- The colony itself, originally a proprietary colony of the Catholic Calvert family, was stolen by the monarchy for the crime of being Catholic;
- Charles Carroll's father, Charles Carroll of Annapolis, found the persecution of Catholics so severe that he attempted to set up a new refuge in what is now Arkansas for Maryland Catholics.
That's why I said if by “quite influential,” you mean “not entirely snuffed out,” then that's not too far off.
You mistake the singular political success of one Catholic to make use of the sentiments of freedom to eventually free Catholics in Maryland with Catholics being generally “quite influential” in the colony prior and up to the Revolution.
sitetest
These topics were discussed at the time of the founding and were many times referred to from Bible scripture. Had America been pro Catholic, we would see more references to the papal edicts and other Catholic writings. What Catholics seem to have trouble with is the differences people seem to find in the Bible, with the structure of the Catholic church. Just by definition, if America was founded on Catholicism, we would have to pay some homage to the pope or Vatican. The facts are that the Catholics had NOT supported ANY REPUBLICS at this time. The Catholic church would never have willingly given up it's power any more than the Anglican church would have with King George.
We didn't have Catholics fleeing from Europe to America for freedom, you see Puritans and Pilgrims fleeing persecution from Europe to worship as they please in freedom away from the kings of Europe that had their own "national church". Catholics, by default believe you are going to burn in hell if you don't convert and the wars of the period were many times just to "quell" the rebellion in the Catholic Church. The "national" religions at the time held power the same way the Catholic church did, by kingly proclamation.
I'm sure there was fear and frustration with Catholics as our founders were trying to be free from what the Catholics and other "national religions" believe was heresy. Compared to today's news cycle, it almost like Black Liberation theology spouting their consternation that they were slaves 200 years ago. Much has changed from then to now and much of America thinks it's time to get over it.
At the time of the founders, to be pro freedom was to be anti Catholic. The founding of America was based on the Christian faith as found in the Bible, not the beliefs on any one denomination. To see Catholics praying to idols and kissing rings was as repugnant as seeing Muslims chop off heads today. There can be no doubt that America was founded on Christ, but no one denomination will dictate the laws of the republic. That is what we call "freedom of religion".
“In other words, Carroll’s personal conduct - and not any prejudices about his religion - were the deciding factor in his selection as one of the four representatives of MD to the Continental Congress.”
....actually it had a lot to do with his money...Chas Carroll was one of the richest men in all the colonies...our family knew them because we held land in the Howard district of Anne Arundel county too...but when a company of men was raised to go down to Annapolis and burn the Peggy Stewart the Carrolls were no where to be found....that’s the Carrolls for you....I’ll say one thing for them though....they know how to defend wealth....they still hold Doughoregan Manor....the largest single privately owned tract of land in the county.
If the Irish were Republicans, the Italians would be DemoRats, the most unnoticed race war in Mass.
I was the one who brought up the figure of 8%—that was Maryland’s share of the population of the United States in 1790. I don’t know what the percentage of Catholics was in Maryland—the US census didn’t ask religious affiliation. If there were something like 40,000 Catholics in the US as a whole, and some of them were in Pennsylvania or other states, then the proportion of Catholics in Maryland would have been under 1 in 8 (12.5%).
Bibles in the vernacular long predated the "reformation". To deny so is indicative of your ignorance on the topic which is further demonstrated by the rest of the nonsense you have posted.
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.