@Marissa Lopes Thanks for proving your point. He was talking about Ben Franklin mistaken for the AMERICAN president. They say Americans are stupid...because you are.
John Adams was a great revolutionary because he took political issues personally. John Adams was a terrible diplomat and president because he took political issues personally.
I'll give you that he wasn't the best diplomat. I think he's one of the best Presidents. How he kept us out of war with France and Britain during his term is to be commended. Though the alien and sedition acts kinda tarnish his reputation.
@@christoperwallace6197 I probably wouldn't qualify the Quasi-War as keeping us out of war with France. I mean, it wasn't declared, it was limited to naval operations, casualties were very light, and it is mostly forgotten on both sides of the Atlantic today, but, for all intents and purposes, the US fought a war against France from July 7, 1798 to September 30, 1800.
@@christoperwallace6197 Seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess! Though a blot on his presidential-record, he made the call, indicating strength & decisiveness, a not undesirable quality in a president. While I can't condone the A & S Acts, I do understand their purpose at that time. The ends don't justify the means, of course, but I don't fault Adams all that much. Remember, the U.S. still was in its infancy, its continued existence hanging by a thread, foreign threats were very real, internal discord & criticism of the government's policies threatened to hinder or even bring it down. The enemy agents of foreign powers were known to be at work in this country as well. We shouldn't be too hard on Mr. Adams over this, in my opinion.
A diplomat also requires a certain obliqueness of conscience and an elastic attitude towards the truth. John Adams was not born with these gifts, nor did he ever develop them.
@@jimstanga6390 What you describe is the necessary traits for a good politician, and John Adams certainly did not have them. However, he did have integrity, conviction and ideological fervor - qualities essential to rally support among both his peers and his people. And both the John Adams type and the Ben Franklin type were needed to get the nation off the ground in its infancy.
Franklin did nothing for the cause of freedom while in France, he only licked the boots of the French ministers. Adams is the one you should applaud, but then you would have to read a good bit of history.
@@stevenkarner6872 Really? Silas Deane and Arthur Lees were the ones who did the work of obtaining arms, Franklin was the window dressing by which the two gains audiences with the French Ministers. That Franklin's importance was that of being the "key" to unlocking doors was important, but his 'diplomacy' was a sham and would try to help send Adams home in disgrace. Yet Adams did far more to help gain our independence, foreign commerce, and world (at least European ) recognition than Franklin ever did. You must be reading out of the children's section.
@@martaamance4545 While your explanation could have warrented an answer and discussion ( as adults would tend to do ) your childish insult precludes such endeavors. Grow up. BTW- I believe you mean Arthur LEE.
@@stevenkarner6872 You come off with the comment that we must have read different books but yet you made no attempt to state your case. That sounds like an insult on your part. So I replay with a few facts to which you make no reply except to point out that my typing of Lee's name was in error. Then you tell me we could have had and answer and discussion but well, you feel slighted. Then you insult me again. A claim for the high moral ground, i suppose. That appears to be the whole of your argument. Now the debate is whether Franklin was such a dazzling diplomatic figure and was he acting like an aging rock star has been. You could have enlightened us with your great knowledge on the subject, assuming you have any, and countered my original comment with facets of your own. But no, you chose to be snide. We could have discussed whether the mini-series had done justice to Adams in this occasion, the problem with film is that it does not lend itself to the expansion one would find in reading about the encounter. There you have it, you could have made your case and you chose to pick a fight and then declare victory and that I must be a child. Ok Mr Karner, you win, I am a child and you remain ignorant. Enjoy your victory for what it's worth.
“I am persuaded... that [John Adams] means well for his Country, is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his Senses.” - Benjamin Franklin
I think Adams is vastly underrated even by his contemporaries. That said, Jefferson would have been a better choice as president after Washington and judging by what Jefferson accomplished I don't think I'm too far off.
@@Rockhound6165 - that little song in "1776" said he was _obnoxious and disliked_ - he was. Because he was probably the most intelligent of the bunch. And a much-needed voice. But, Franklin hit the nail on the head - Adams did not have one diplomatic bone in his body. And never suffered fools
"When in the Course of humid events, it becomes necessary for one colon to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the septic and equal stench to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a defecate respect to the orifice of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impale them to such sepsis. " - Benjamin Franklin lol
What John unfortunately couldn't take into consideration here is the fact that the united states was far, far removed from being any kind of established power.. in fact, this was even before John worked with the dutch to establish credit as a sovereign power. Whatever was really happening within the colonies was of little concern to France other than the fact helping them raise a little hell would annoy the British and just add to their increasing rates of attrition, and even then we're lucky that the french royal court was so wildly irresponsible with money spending that their own people eventually beheaded them all, otherwise they might have not been as keen to give us the forces and resources we so desperately needed to stave off British aggression.
Sorry but your interpretation of the French Revolution is a bit off. True, the French went overboard with pride, they also honestly believed in the confused state that was France. Along with that Dog Jacques Necker, that France was incredibly solvent. That’s why so much was committed. It was less an act of irresponsibility, and more an act of fraud on certain accountants parts, one of which I mentioned was Necker. As for Louis Beheading. That is one of the saddest stories form history. There was nothing glorious about it, or civic. It was far from democracy. The French king fled basically as a refugee. Got caught. Got taken back to Paris. And the Assembly basically had a vote whether ti execute or not, where almost everyone voted along ideological lines, vs whether his “crime” warranted death. Took the French another 150 years ti get good at democracy, and their democracy is still laughed at by many around the world. The death of Louis was like the death of Simon in the lord of the flies. It was literally the breaking of the jar. After that, the Terrors started. The terrors in Paris. The massacres, arguably genocide in the Vendomè. And lots of wars.
@@elyastoohey6621 Yeah. The Directory ordered the beheading of the royal family because sad Louis was conspiring with Austria and Prussia to reinstall the absolute monarchy. Most likely Robespierre would have ended guillotining him anyhow.
@@elyastoohey6621 also the king didn't fled like a refugee. He was placed under house arrest, yet he escaped. Disguised himself as a woman and got caught on the countryside. That's not even a contested statement of facts amongst historians. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the fall of Haiti and the massive public spending on the American adventure didn't ruin France's finances...
@@igunashiodesu he had officials and guards killed and the mob paraded their heads in front of the royal family’s quarters. That sounds like a refugee fleeing. The statement that his flight was illegal is also predicated that the vague provisional government was legitimate.. Louis never really committed any crime, other than being the figurehead of a system that limited the ambitions of a bunch of power hungry men, a system which was also oppressive to the lower classes though. Most of the men who would later form up the DA were grasping and in it off themselves. Louis’ execution was purely ideological and political. The absolute removal of the king was what many of them wanted, and it in turn would give those men more power. I find unfortunately it’s people who romanticise the French Revolution, typically those with an repulsion to monarchy (I don’t like monarchy, but you can’t judge them from a Marxist perspective) they glorify and exalt Louis’ execution as some grand gesture of freedom. The irony is, Louis execution was a blatant representation of anarchy and tyranny. Where every person who could would make themselves a petty king, and Deal out death. I think France would be a better place today if it kept a degree of constitutional monarchy.
Ben Franklin was a Charmer. He was intelligent as hell too. I read his autobiography, and I still admit I don't know enough about him to say this is an accurate depiction of him.
This is more interesting the more you read up on it. Adams was described as being blunt and a little socially awkward whereas Franklin was the heart of the party. Franklin was good at interacting with people and could work his way up to amuse the host while Adams couldn't really interact with extroverts. Both were amazing
Same with Washington, Jefferson and Madison. All were quiet and soft spoken men. Thomas Jefferson only gave 2 speeches to congress because he was that socially awkward. I also believe he had mild autism and that didnt help out
He didn't own him in this scene, he simply gave him a reality check. Although, if I were in John Adams position, I would have been doing the same thing. Too much time BSing and drinking cocktails instead of getting shit done, I could never be a diplomat.
Sometimes you need to BS and be needlessly formal, other times you get to the point and be very blunt. A good diplomat or any good official who has to negotiate and make deals has to know who and when to do what.
France just bluntly viewed the US as beneath them, a bunch of backwoods country bumpkins and nor did they think the 'rebels' at the time would succeed. It should be noted that Adams was frequently blocked from doing anything very much because of his attitude and really wasn't getting 'shit done'. Franklin meanwhile realized this, and really it was about getting noticed. You had to get noticed to get invited, then to hope that you could get the ear of a noble who wouldn't be annoyed by you. Otherwise you simply got locked out and met all of no one. Franklin in every sense in France was the one that got it done.
I'd say John Adams gives every bit as good as he gets by Franklin in this scene and this is actually one of my favorite scenes in ANY movie/series. Adams makes a very profound statement here and asserts real American independence. Something Franklin should have considered. Franklin was an AMAZING figure, but every toolbox needs its hammer.
The thing I find most interesting is that these two men, at their heart, wanted very much the same things but their background and way of thinking were very different. It is amazing how you can see the passion in both men but how that passion for country is displayed and acted upon very differently. Wonderful acting here!
That’s the thing about early American history, no American was ever 100% correct in their thoughts and ideas. Everyone had to give a little and get a little
What's fascinating is how their careers influenced their diplomatic styles. Ben Franklin was a writer and editor, and had learned how to charm and entertain an audience with his wit and humor. John Adams was a lawyer, and learned how to win over a jury by directly arguing against and discrediting the opposing side. Thus Ben Franklin's style of diplomacy was much more based on flattery and charisma, whereas John Adams' style of diplomacy was based on argument and debate.
@@creamychoclatelobsterwarri979 It was only feasible due to circumstance and distance from the European powers, and even then Britain managed to sack and burn the White House in 1812. I think Franklin had the right idea- as a small nation, one's best option is to play larger powers off each other to one's own advantage. Ally with at least one, and you not only remove the threat of an enemy, but employ its strength in your stead
There were good reasons to ask John Adams & Jefferson to serve as ambassadors during the Constitutional Convention. Both were difficult to deal with. Adams butted heads with near everybody and Jefferson surreptitiously backstabbed those he disagreed with. Neither understood or were capable of compromise. Adams was an overt ass... Jefferson was worse... a sneaky bastard who had others do his dirty work while he pretended friendship. Both had great qualities, but with feet of clay.
Being an honest and forthright man is NOT a good trait for a diplomat. Especially not when you are trying to get another country to support you in a war. France didn't owe the American colonies anything. If they were to help, then OF COURSE it would be for their own benefit. Why was that a hard concept to understand?
And because being honest and forthright isn't consider a good trait in the US, we're left with bastions of corruption, doublespeak, fakeness, and moral absence.
In fact France was becoming too powerful and arrogant but it did not have the navel power to support America… the Brits would soon cut the frenchies down to size a few decades later… 😏
Adams knew that, but there’s still RU-vid comments that think America is under serfdom for France’s 18th century gesture. That’s what he wanted to avoid.
they're both right really. Adams had his heart in the right place. but Franklin knew his abrasive manner wouldn't accomplish what they both wanted. like Franklin said, politics is (unfortunately) the art of the possible
It's so funny to me that people think Adams comes out looking good in this exchange. he sounds ill tempered and impatient, and Franklin has the long game in mind. some things never change
@Matt Horkan He didnt. They went with Franklins plan and did not end up being a pawn of the French anyway. Had Adams gotten his way there would have been no help at all.
@@johanlassen6448 That the French Kingdom would have had a much greater political stranglehold on the USA than you let on, we may very well have been a pawn. As you see later on in the show that even the French revolutionaries claimed that the Americans were bound by contractual duty to support their cause. Remember the French still had the Louisiana territories. If not for internal decay and instability on their home front and the King not getting his head cut off we would have been involuntarily involved with the French and their foreign conflicts. Would the French had even given up their territory’s bordering the US if they had a rebellion? If the French had held onto those territories for another hundred years there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that-that would upend political stability between these two powers, even with minds like Alexander Hamilton… America’s eventual plans of expanding west of the Mississippi.
Benjamin Franklin was right though. He understood how diplomacy worked and he was able to win the French over. On the other hand the French disliked John Adams.
Excellent show!!!! I highly recommend this show to everyone. I actually disagree with the title. I have seen this and ALL of our founders were under a stress many of today could never endure. Not to mention this is a prime example of taking something out of context.
The problem that Adams had as a diplomat--and as a politician really--is that he was too honest and he thought that agreements were solemn promises that had to be kept. In all politics, diplomacy included, agreements are only meant to be kept as long as they are beneficial and you can extricate yourself from them when they no longer are. Franklin knew that the US wouldn't keep its promises to France, but Adams thought they were morally obligated to do so and so didn't want to enter into an agreement that was, on its face, disadvantageous to the US.
If I remember right, they removed Adams from his diplomatic position in France when they cut it from 3 diplomats to just Franklin. But they didn't tell Adams to come home either, so he went to the Netherlands, set up an embassy and started negotiating with them. All on his own initiative.
This behavior can only be explained by understanding that Adams was at heart, a curmudgeon. He was from New England and the region has a reputation as being full of people who aren't afraid to speak their mind. Unfortunately, Adams took this a step further and actually started insulting those he couldn't bend to his way of thinking. He does learn though. When he is sent to the Netherlands he finally develops some tact and actually succeeds in convincing the Dutch to loan the United States some money to fight the Revolution. Later, as President he would again become the irascible curmudgeon and end up offending people when he should have been seeking harmony and understanding. It contributed to him serving only one term in office.
Paul Giamatti as John Adams was without equal, with the one obvious exception being Laura Linney as his wife Abagail. Could watch this series a dozen times, and have.
John Adams was anything but practical. He was the pure idealist. Even Jefferson ended up proving to be more practical when he became president. Which isn't a direct criticism of Adams, but rather to say his integrity and moral fiber aren't cut out for the career of a successful politician. He was greatly tamed by his colleagues such as Ben Franklin and his wife Abigail, without whom he would have failed miserably many of his great accomplishments. I think the show actually did a great job depicting that aspect, too.
Adams memoirs also made it abundantly clear that his 'common man' brotherhood only went as far as not wanting to be an English subject, beyond that he quite believed himself as deserving of aristocratic title. This was a common theme with the founding fathers. "The King calls me common when I know myself a Baron without the recognition and dignity of title. I have land and tenants. No other pedigree or writ can speak such as that."
This is how it is done. Under the auspices of consultation, your adversaries overhear you loudly discussing the meaning of "ABK" with your own compatriot.
Danny Devito did a great job playing Ben franklin and hats off to Steve Buscemi as John Adams I love when 2 actors come back and just really show you how good they still are bravo gentlemen bravo!
If Adams had hung around in Paris, with Franklin, and not gone on to obtain smaller, immediate support from the Dutch, there might not have been a Revolution for the French to assist in.
@Wyatt Howe I think it just shows their different personalities. Benjamin Franklin was a superbly multi-talented man that we owe our heritage to. John Adams was a fine lawyer, president, and idealist. But, as we can see here, his Puritanical convictions alienated him greatly from France. His weakness was that he was blunt, short-tempered, and would double down in tense situations. Sometimes that proved to be a good idea; here, he would be transferred to a more suitable assignment.
Benjamin Franklin: Nor would I, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. But to call me one without those rights is like calling an ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but he'd much rather have restored what's rightfully his. John Dickinson: When did you first notice they were missing, sir?
The title of this clip is 180 degrees from what actually happened. Adams was not enamored by France, as was Franklin & Jefferson. He viewed their relationship to American independence as a dangerous necessity, and rightly so. Without his caution, the independence of America from Great Britain could well have been ceded to yet another European yoke. Adams owned Franklin in this discourse, as his foresight was greater than Franklin's vast wisdom.
Another European Yoke? France didn't have the time, nor the means to enyoke North America. They participated in the War at a loss. As for "owning": being louder does not mean you are right. He did a terrible job as a diplomat and threw a tantrum
The US was a pauper nation in it's infancy. Imagine having to borrow and beg for aid and on top of that,paying taxes to ,and having to engage militarily with the British.
Adams and Franklin each brought something different to the table. It was good to include them and eventually Jefferson to work towards getting French assistance
The difference between the two men is that Benjamin Franklin had long learned how to move within the circles of Paris to endear himself to them as a welcomed guest and even friend, and while it would take a long time, eventually he could lean upon those friendships for help and support of his cause(es)... John Adams, while an exceptionally keen mind for problem-solving, was simply too direct and aggressive of an instrument for the courtiers of France to take a particular liking to and thus give him the help he was asking from them. Adams misunderstood the standing of the United States in the eyes of France at the time, being little more than a newly formed rebel state, so it took a lot of finesse to persuade France into helping a rebellion against a monarch even though that very same idea would VERY shortly come back and ravage France as well...
Was Ben Franklin a double agent working for Britain? Apparently, that’s what I’m hearing based on supposed unclassified British documents. Anyone hear about that?
@@tomjaap2933the fact that this, let’s call it “French politicking” got most the people in that room beheaded within a few decades speaks volumes more about Adam’s Germanic, stubborn, honest and true politicking over any Machiavellian plan of that Freemason Franklin scheming in his back rooms like an old coward. The fact that people in this comment section are more moved by the feigned reaction of some actors acting as a room full of silent and “petrified” French nobility says everything I need to know about the worth of the opinions of this crowd.
To all those who think John Adams somehow won this argument- getting angry and losing your temper doesn’t mean you won the argument. The loudest shouter doesn’t equal the one with the best ideas. Ben Franklin knew this, and he actually knew how to be diplomatic and negotiate to get what he wanted. Just look how everyone else in the room makes way for Adams when he storms off. They think he’s some kind of unhinged nut job.
@@theaquilapriscillaministry1957 Exception*, and no, it really is not. Adams won nothing here. He comes off as an an angry baboon and for all his shouting he accomplished nothing.
@Johan Lassen- History judges differently. Without John Adams, fiery as his temperament was, there would have been no revolution as we now know it. Being good at diplomacy isn't comprised of simply possessing the ability to postulate and act benign, it is also having the ability to show your teeth... and convince your audience of your willingness to bite if forced. John Adams later became a President, Benjamin Franklin later became an embarrassment.
