6:16 "first things first; independence. If we don't secure that, what difference will the rest make?" I hope he really said that, so wise (and heartbreaking).
For some more context here. It was in the orginal document and it was struck due to opposition from the south. And molasses to rum accurately shows why. The entire congress and all states had their fingers in the pie that was slavery. The minutes were never kept. And all we have are accounts written much later. I do beleive it wasnt this dramatic, but the meanings shown in the film are accurate. And certainly does a better job of showing why slavery mattered to all 13 colonies. Which is rarely taught now
Thank you so much for putting this up! :) I, unlike a lot of people, I guess, actually came here for the scenes and not the song, so this is absolutely great! =D
It's left unspoken by play's end, but even Rutledge knows the slavery issue will come back up sooner than later even after the Declaration's ratification.
The line that Adams said “if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us” was actually said by Samuel Adams and was “if we give in on this issue , there will be trouble a hundred years hence, posterity will never forgive us us “. The writers removed the there will be trouble a hundred years hence fearing the audience would think they were making it up since the Civil war happened almost a hundred years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence
Benjamin Franklin was right. As awful as slavery was, compromises had to be made unfortunately. Not every state was for the ending of it, and the fact that John Adams was concentrated on that issue for a while moved away from the focus on independence and divided the representatives even more. As noble as Adams was, Franklin was right: he did jeopardize their cause.
This scene, while great drama, is not historically accurate. NO ONE spoke out against slavery when the Declaration was being adopted. Even though Franklin and Adams found slavery repulsive, they BOTH knew any attack against it, at that time and with the people they were working with, would've been shot down. As such, Adams was pretty much on the same page as Franklin from the get-go.
@@rickysanders6487 True, but this isn't intended to be an accurate portrayal of history - it's a musical, first and foremost. It's intended to entertain. It's also worth viewing the musical 1776 as a product of it's time - the late 1960s/early 1970s. Telling this story, in this way, and *not* bringing up the hypocrisy of declaring independence while also maintaining the practice of slavery would have been a notable omission, to say the least.
@@thor30013 I am aware that this is first and foremost meant to entertain. However, any retelling of history needs to be compared and contrasted to what we know about the events it discusses. When we're talking about REAL people, especially people as historically consequential as America's founders, context and accuracy about convictions are EXTREMELY important. This is especially true regarding the subject of slavery and what roles they had in relation to it. I see your point about highlighting this hypocrisy (the song "Molasses to Rum" is indeed a haunting reminder of how powerful slavery was in the colonies) but I feel like you could have that drama behind it while reminding the audience that ALL of these men, at this time, did not prioritize abolishing slavery. We don't need Adams to be a surrogate for our modern values (especially since Franklin, at that time, was probably more enlightened about slavery and race than any of them).
@@rickysanders6487 jefferson did write the words and it was cut due to the southern delegation reaction. The scene is more dramatic, but the strokes are accurate
Edward Rutledge was representing the best interests of his constituents. And he wasn't a hypocrite like Jefferson, who spoke against slavery while owning numerous slaves. We tend to look upon slavery from a modern perspective, but at the time of the Declaration it was the norm, not the exception.
I tear up every time I hear Ben Franklin call the Southern delegates: "proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies." People, that's what Dr. Franklin himself called us redneck colonials, it's so touching! He believed in us! :) Also, Rutledge is right Jefferson was a hypocrite; he never got rid of his slaves and the North never believed Blacks were equals with them.
The greatest tragedy of Jefferson's life was that he changed his mind on slavery. By the time he died, he was fully convinced that he'd been wrong to think black people were his equals. People in the 18th Century believed that "all men are created equal;" but people in the 19th Century challenged that idea with pseudoscience and armchair anthopology, and being an educated man, Jefferson read and believed it.
Jefferson was much in debt. I believe that there was a law, in Virginia then, that prohibited a slave owner from selling or freeing slaves, while in debt.
@jason60chev Yeah I forgot that slaves could not be sold while in debt. But I am sure he could have cleared his debts with assets if he wanted to. He was one of the wealthiest men in Virginia at the time.
A lot of people think that allowing slavery to exist after independence was unacceptable in a free country, but the sad fact of the matter is there was no way abolition could be accomplished at the same time as Independence. The Southern colonies would never join an emancipated union fighting against Britain and other colonies that would couldn't win independence with the South on Britains side. The choice at that moment was independence with slavery or slavery without independence.
Well at the time of independence many of the founding fathers might have expected slavery to die off on it's own as it was getting less profidable. Slaves were mostly used on tabaco plants, it wasn't until the invention of the cotton gin 20 years later that the cotton industrie really took off. Sadly this increased the demand for slaves
You know the interesting thing about this discussion: the South wanted slavery, but no slave trade. The North claimed to want to end slavery, yet they were the ones making fortunes during the slave trade. Hancock, Hopkins, and several other signers of the Declaration made their fortunes due to their involvement in the Triangle Trade. Also, the first colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts, while the first thing that Virginia did after declaring independence in May of 1776 was end the slave trade. Even more hypocritical of the North was that they continued to ply the slave trade even after it became illegal in the US.
you know the thing is slaves would have been better off if the Colonists lost the American Revolutionary War. since the UK ended Slavery in 1833 in there Colonies which is why here in Canada slavery ended sooner since Canada was still under the British Empire until after world War one same with other European countries such as France also ended slavery earlier along with Russia ending Serfdom in 1861 Mexico ended slavery before the USA also the whole slavery thing would have ended sooner if it was Abolished over time like those other countries through Law rather than a Cvil War 80 years later the founders of the US where all slave holders not all where such as John Adams but they could have dealt with Slavery back in 1776 rather than let the issue get out of control and wait 80 years latter and a cvil war just to end something that other countries did by law
Paige Duffy Lewis Um, my great grandmother was. She was a little girl when her parents were emancipated. You keep thinking that because YOU don't have relatives that were alive at that time or that YOUR experience somehow is relevant, that it applies to other people. My advice to you is to STFU and learn something.
And now you look at the cycle of greed leaving it to others to solve the problems. Thank you Martin Luther King Jr. Thank you Robert F. Kennedy Jr. You gave us the door. You gave us the way out. How long shall we have your words of wisdom fall on deaf ears. Thank you MLK and RFK for the joining of hands and the resolution toward peace. I am sorry we have been such terrible students.
Yet tragically fitting, While he was vocal about the harms of the slave trade to both races, he also still held strong beliefs in white people being inherently superior (even dismissing his contemporaries pointing out the many advanced civilizations that had existed throughout the centuries). And while he said he would free his slaves, he only wound up freeing five of the hundreds he had, his children of his slave mistress Sally Hemmings (two sons had to pay for their freedom, and the rest he only released on his deathbed) But no one else, not even the Sally (who was also the half sister of Jeffersons late wife, the product of a slaveowners affair).
@@Thommy2n Due to the laws of the time you couldnt just free slaves. I believe you needed to around 300$ to each of the now free men so that that could start a life with at least something since back then your slaves were your responsibly once freed initial financial responsibly falls to the slave owner. Jeff just didnt have the cash to free all the slaves ripppp money is evil lol
What's fucked up is by the time of rutlage death in 1800 he freed all his slaves and became a abolitionist far too late to to prevent the events that led to the Civil War!
Sharon Abreu WHAT?! You're joking! ...please tell me you're joking. This is worse than removing "Cool Considerate Men." "They won't be satisfied until they remove one of the Fs from Jefferson's name," indeed.
Sharon Abreu They must of been playing the VHS version of the film. That version of the film cuts plenty of music that is featured in the full length film
It was shown today on Turner Classic Movies at 3:00pm in all of its original glory. From "Sit Down John to Is Anybody There," & everything in between. I have never seen this movie otherwise. To do so would be blasphemy.
Even though Adams was obnoxious and disliked, he had faith in America to be born and Dickinson on the other hand thought the USA couldn’t beat England before he lost the vote on independence!😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🇺🇸
individual...would have prevented this abominable crime fro spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment."-Thomas Jefferson
This song brought me to tears. Musically it’s a great piece but the content and spirit of the lyrics is a sickening reminder of America’s history of hatred and hypocrisy. This reality of the founding of the United States undermines the very cause they fought for.
What stays with me in this scene is that Rutledge votes "yea" to declaring independence, as brave an act for him as it was for Adams or anyone else there. Not sure why South Carolina would care about that at this early stage. Maybe should have been pointed out more in the script.
It is a supreme irony of history that slavery in America would almost certainly have ended a lot sooner had we not declared independence. I am not making a judgement here but merely pointing at the historical debate on the pivotal role of the creation of the USA.
I don't think that's a guarantee as Britain may have viewed slavery more favorably if it still owned the southern colonies. The world in general may have seen a delay in liberalism.
@@squidlytv Indeed. Without America, the abolition of slavery in the British Empire was far more easily attained since there would less of an economic effect in having to pay property reparations (yuck!) to the slaveholders. I fear that the massive, powerful bloc of slaveholders in 13 Colonies (and especially the South) would have made it much, much harder for the ruling powers in charge of England at the time to agree, since they would more likely to have larger, even more irreparable losses in allowing such a thing, sadly. Remember, in our timeline, it took until around *2015* for the debts to be totally paid off, even without the American colonies!
@@kbye2321and one must remember that Britain still relied on southern cotton after 1833, if they did not have the option to buy cheap cotton from outside the empire things might have turned out different
The reason you find it shameful is because men of the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment, including the people in that room, articulated the ideals that you take for granted. They conceived of the ideas and mainstreamed them so that people like you might be born into a society that can't phantom the institution of slavery. Try to have a little respect.
@@kevinkent6351 Yes, they articulated those ideals and those IDEALS should be lauded in any society that calls itself "free". However, isn't the charge of hypocrisy warranted, not even just a little bit? What the hell do you even mean "people like you"?! Do you WANT a society where we can "fathom" the institution of slavery? I can "fathom" that slavery was the norm in the 18th century, but when you're creating a country based around the concept of FREEDOM, you better put your money where your mouth is! That whole "victims of their time" logic can only go so far. Some of the men in that room, including Franklin and Adams, were ACTIVELY against slavery. I can respect the IDEALS of any man who fights in liberty's name, but I have MORE respect for those who pursue liberty for ALL. (Just as a side note, I consider Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine to be among the most amazing men to walk the earth.)
@@rickysanders6487 again, you only find them to be hypocrites because THEY originated and popularized ideals that became fundamental to our society's understanding of the world. You judge them because you take for granted their ideals. Had you been born in 18th century Virginia you almost certainly would not have had enlightenment beliefs. Let me also point out how evil our present society is as articulated by you. A society that views all morality through the prism of race is one where a man on one hand believes he is morally right to judge people from the past for their hypocrisy on race while simultaneously declaring Franklin and Paine, two of the most prolific sinners of their day, as among the greatest men to ever live. You have an incredibly shallow understanding of morality. And yeah, you should be judged for your morally reprobate position.
@@kevinkent6351 I view SOME (not all) of the founders as hypocrites because they claimed to fight for liberty while preserving an institution that kept human beings in CHAINS. I recognize the fact that not all of them believed it was right and that some (like Franklin) wanted to abolish it, but words have meaning. Hypocrisy refers to "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform". Ergo, SOME (again, not all) of the founders, even those of more noble character, could reasonably be called hypocrites. You declare Franklin and Paine to be "two of the most prolific sinners of their day". Why? What did these men do to deserve this position? They were human beings with their own flaws, but they were also FAR ahead of their time. I think YOU have an incredible shallow understanding of morality if you find anything I've said "morally reprobate" or if your idea of "sin" involves any action that doesn't impose tangible harm to another human being. Y'know like...I dunno, SLAVERY???
@@rickysanders6487 If you have to ask what makes Paine and Franklin among the most prolific sinners of their day than you don't know enough about the topic at hand to even have a discussion about the topic, let alone to declare them greatest among men to ever live. Franklin was famous in France for his sexual promiscuity and for cheating on his wife. Paine was so unpopular in his life that hardly anyone showed up for his funeral. They were deeply, deeply flawed, perhaps more so than normal people. Because you've idolized racism as chief among the sins (or non-racism as chief among the virtues), you can declare morally reprobate people to be morally virtuous (in fact, among the most virtuous); the only way you could do that is if you have a morally perverse worldview that has been shaped by our (evil) society that views anti-racism and consent as the only virtues and their opposites the only vices. Your viewpoint on the "hypocrisy" of the founding fathers is, ironically, so unenlightened and completely self-unaware. Rather than showing gratitude toward the men who originated and popularized the ideas that you take for granted (and almost certainly wouldn't have held had you been born into 18th century Virginia), you stand in judgment of them for not overthrowing in their hearts thousands of years of civilization in their own lifetimes. It's actually rather amazing, especially coming from a us who live in a society that kills 50 billion animals a year for human consumption and, in the U.S. alone, murders 1 million babies in the womb. The Babylon Bee sums up people like you rather succinctly: "Nation that kills 3,000 babies a day feels morally superior to slaveowners 200 years ago."
@EHH246 Glad that the musical did not gloss over the fact that without compromise on the slavery issue, that this Nation would not exist, and that without this Nation, liberty would not exist throughout the world to the extent that is does today. We owe all of this to their ability to compromise and to let slavery stay in place until such time as it could be removed without destroying what would become the greatest force for liberty that mankind has ever seen; the United States of America.
@@codyshi4743 Obviously he's against it. They put Molasses to Rum in the play to show that the north was just as guilty as the south was, and that they have less to lose from the abolition of Slavery. If slavery is abolished, all the southern farmers lose their homesteads. On the other hand, the northern traders who sold them the slaves have already been paid, they lose nothing. In short, Rutledge is making sure the northerners know just how hypocritical they are, shaming the southerners for slavery.
My ancestors were there when they were unloading the first slave ships in 1619 and it is written my ancestors were heard across the harbor yelling " Do not unload your cargo , that's all we need here are more undocumented migrant farmworkers
You've accepted this movie's version of history as accurate. It isn't. See wikipedia. The debate over slavery took place after the declaration was signed, not before. The majority of the delegates, north and south, didn't want the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Independence. And Rutledge released his slaves before his death, but Jefferson didn't.
@ULike2Love It wasn't about race, it was economics. Unfortunately, the southern plantations were manned by slave labor and slave labor was common in the european colonies. Im not saying it was right, but it was a fact. If anything, the movie Amistad which is based on the true story of the slave uprising in 1839 of that ship, and the subsequent trial and even involvement of past President John Quincy Adams, shows that good men fought for the abolition of slavery in the United States.
One wonders that if we hadn't broken away, or at worst, maintained more autonomy and a lighter connection to England, what would have happened once England banned slavery across the board. Would the South still have gone apeshit? And then had to deal with the northern half AND England?
Would they have banned slavery across the board had they still owned us? The south may have still kept slavery even as a British colony for the same reason slavery remained prevelant. Without America's experiment in Government would the world be as free as it was today?
Although Thomas Jefferson own slaves. He also was an advocate for abolishing this cruel and inhuman practice. Besides the clause that was taken out of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote an ordinance in 1784 3yrs before the Constitutional convention that said: That any new territories added to the US shall be free. "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states." -Thomas Jefferson It failed by one vote! He then wrote this: " The voice of a single -
@Frederick Dorsey And what was it like when you were enslaved? If this country is so tyrannical, leave, either to Africa like your ancestors in the 1850s to Sierra Leone, or to European liberals, or a hole in the ground, whichever you prefer.
@@GeorgeMonet Because of Virginia's laws when it came to freeing slaves. Virginia required freed slaves to be given money upon being freed, and all of Jefferson's wealth was in the form of land, not cash. He literally couldn't afford to free his slaves
Rutledge found God and changed his mind later! Washington's dog groomer, escaped to the british and became an officer. read Christain Cameron's Washington and ceaser
And yet, it was Great Britain who - in the end - abolished slavery ages before America ever did. If America had lost the Revolution, slavery would have ended far sooner than it actually did with the Civil War. I'm not saying that America should have stayed under England. And compromises did have to be made for independence. But keep in mind that America was one of the last countries in the world to end slavery. England may have started it, but America wasn't the one to finish it first.
And I wouldn't exist, nor would any of the Americans who came after. To a great degree, the modern notion of independent nation states was created with the work of the US' founders. If we'd listened to John Adams, slaves would have been emancipated at the very beginning.
We'd have no independence. The South would have walked out and would have sided with the British and the Middle and Northern colonies would have lost the war handedly.
Sadly, this paints an inaccurate and sympathetic picture of some of the signers of the Declaration who themselves owned slaves. We all know about Jefferson, but Ben Franklin himself owned slaves. And though he didn't sign the Declaration, George Washington was also a slave-owner.
What is ironic of course is that if they had refused to give in and Independence had not occurred, slavery and the salve trade would have been abolished much sooner as England had abolished it long before the United States and without the necessity of a civil war. If the southern regions had attempted to abdicate then, they would not only have had the full weight of the north but the entire British Army to contend with. We would also have had universal health insurance by now and fewer wars.
Incorrect. Slavery was abolished much sooner in England because England had many poor and little land. Their principle industry shifted towards finished goods which were more easily and cheaply produced by cheap unskilled labor than by slaves. England abolished slavery because it had no more need for slaves. Had the North American colonies remained part of the England then the large amount of land and agriculture would have maintained the large agricultural industry as part of the economy and hence resulted in slavery not being abolished in England.
There simply was not a quick and easy way to abolish slavery at that time. The British started it and it was at the time a normal and vital part of the American economy and even war effort. Franklin was right that independence needed to come first to allow for abolishment to ever have a chance. The North were against slavery because they didn't need them and the south the exact opposite but the 1st hurdle was British rule. After the Mexican /America war the nation grew so big and strong noone was a threat to us and rest of the world had changed their stance on slavery. So this long delayed fight against itself could occur. A 4-year destructive civil war and the near destruction of our nation was a high price to pay to end this. Much different world back then, very very hard to apply our norms to people over a 150 years ago. In the end the nation endured, and everyone became equal and we all benefited from everyones sacrifices both slave and free. In the end It's the best that could be done and part of history that we cannot change.
