This scene from HBO's brilliant John Adams series made me think of the recent Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard spill where popular public opinion can be quite different to the majority opinion of their elected officials.
@@Maxq1 It's not even about being on the right side of the fence, but about being able to have your own opinions, politically or otherwise without being chastised for it. We live in a country now where we are being forced to accept different genders, etc. Eventually, there will be pushback.
@@Maxq1 I think you should let it play out. Why be friends with Dems if you feel like you get beat up for your political views? It's almost fascinating how many ppl from different points of the political spectrum interpert what Jefferson and Adams said here. "Cannot protect the nation by attacking the right of every man to speak freely without fear" Do you believe speach is just speach or do you think it can move ppl to action? I think Adams was making the point that the US - as an institution - has a moral obligation to do the right thing - through its democratically elected leadership.
@@Maxq1 I'm deeply bothered by our politics. Apathy is deeply entrenched in our "2-party system". We have the evidence and can even see how it effects our citizens and yet we do nothing because we're either afraid to anger our colleagues on the otherside of the aisle or we lack the courage of our convictions to do what is right. Some do but I'm afraid the majority of this country just don't see it or simply do not care. I'm afraid I do not see the value in conservatism. It goes against progress, it goes against nature even. Everything changes. People, technology, our learning and understanding of human behavior. Even our language changes. We must adapt or we will fall behind. Not a lecture, just my personal thoughts and observations.
Jefferson is probably one of my least favorite Presidents. He complained about how Washington and Adams used the Federal power, then he made some incredibly controversial decisions in his term.
@@ReconRecall yes but he was the first president who believed in less government involvement. He had a lot of challenges to face and the federalists hated him. I think he did better than most men would in that position
Great scene done with much deliberation and reverence. Jefferson did once call Adams' administration the "reign of witches" but he'd never say that to Adams' face. That wasn't his style. The dispassion in the scene makes up for that. Jefferson is solidly against Adams and will do what it takes to bring him down, but he is not angry with his friend. He is trying to reason with him. Adams was a great man, but he was pushed into a corner and surrounded by loud voices who told him it was his duty to protect the country at all costs.
@@pp-bb6jj The problem with any such laws, that seek total control, is that they are subject to the whims and subjective opinions of the people in charge of enforcing them. For example, the sedition act, seeking to make it a crime to "print, utter, or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing." Who defines what is false, scandalous, or malicious? You can see the problem with that even today. If you get someone from New York and someone from Texas in the room together, they would both passionately argue that the other is the one spreading false, scandalous, or malicious writing, or utterances.
@@shawnn7502 The Alien and Sedition acts are a complex matter. However, Adams proposed it as a way of managing immigration and providing national security from France in what was a non-shooting war with that country. Still, it was a breech of the First Amendment because the President could have anybody imprisoned for criticizing him or the US Government. The Federalist Party was the anti-democratic party. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans won the election of 1800 and let the Sedition part expire and repealed certain parts of it as well. However, the Alien Enemies act is still in place today.
John Adams, arguably the greatest of our forefathers, in , arguably, his worst moment in history, proving that, no matter how great and virtuous one may be, all are far from perfect.
Could not take Stannis Baratheon seriously..I could only see Thomas Jefferson..Stephen Dillane was absolutely brilliant in this role, and would love to see a mini series as Jefferson.
It's amazing how in the 18th Century two men can sit down, have a conversation, be in political opposition and respectfully disagree with each other's views, and still leave maintaining their respect for each other without insulting or belittling. This is something people in 2021 need to get educated on.
I mean in a couple of years the Vice President did shoot the former Security of the Treasury because of political disagreements but, you know, it was better then.
@MasteroMatter this is why Socrates advocated for public education regarding voting. Rather than everyone gets to vote, only those who are actually knowledgeable about the facts of politics could vote. These days that idea would be called racist or elitist probably. They had too many demagogues and feared it above all other leadership styles.
John Adams had a point that Congress had passed those laws. The President is supposed to abide by and enforce the law. He could have vetoed the act but then Congress and the media could have accused him of being tyrannical. It was a really shitty time and people were scared.
A powerful show. The more I watch and listen, the more I believe the civil war is always an inevitability in a country held together only by ideas written on paper. Most certainly when 2 sides can no longer agree to what those ideas written really mean.
You could also say that a country founded on violent revolution will always have violent revolution lurking around every corner as some romanticized version of history.
@@barrywhite1770 this is true. Rebellious attitude, and going against the grain are in the DNA of American culture. And that's what makes it strong. Because views are constantly challenged as both sides look for holes and weaknesses in each others platform and thus this allows for refinement. At least that's how it used to be
It's not too often you see a scene where two people are arguing and are both right, to some degree. Personally I take the side of Jefferson in this matter, but to each his own.
Jefferson is definately in the right. You see, part of the reason those yankies ever revolted against the british was because they felt that their rights as stated in the british "constitution" (It's complicated) were being trampled upon. If John Adams were to do such thing then you'd expect that Adams would cause what he desired to avoid, the shattering of the union.
I'm definitely in agreement with you on that. The A&S Act was an act of childishness. Adams was mad because some people were making fun of him so he threw a fit and tried to pass a law to silence them. How such a remarkably intelligent man could do something so inane baffles me. But it also demonstrates how every president since Washington has tried to push the boundaries of his office and abuse the power given him. Every... single... one.
Even knowing the history I can never wrap my head around how Adams could promote such a policy which is so clearly a violation of the constitution. Granted it's the antifederalist bill of rights part of it, but how deporting those who merely express merely a different political opinion seems to me to be abject tyranny.
The old argument of "What's good for the people" verus "what do the people want". Jefferson believes the Alien and Sedition Act would undermine the rights of the people, and yet it is the very representatives of the people that are pushing the act through Congress. Democracy is a fickle thing, an ideal to strive towards and become worthy of.
dalton brasier I get what you’re saying. Wouldn’t you say though that it’s not about a group ruling another group as such, but rather about a choice being given to the people it will affect and subsequently taking the course that most people want. That’s why too far left or right is dangerous. More central parties try to accommodate for more people . Supposedly. At the end of the day , get the basic human rights and opportunities covered then after that it’s just about the private interests of parties . Everyone knows this... But that’s another reason why people want decentralisation isn’t it? Open Democracy still isn’t perfect , but it’s better than monarchy or more exclusive Republics.
@@joesteers1940 No one should have a say in what I do with my property and self. If the "decisions" people were making werent dictating what individuals do with their property and self, no one would have an issue because then it would be voluntary.
dalton brasier Okay. In a sense we don’t actually disagree here. So you’re talking about the private rights and freedoms of an individual? Well I can tell you that I wouldn’t want to try tell you what to do with your property or on your property , that is your business, NOT MINE ! So long as it only affects you however. So what system would you have in place instead of ‘Democracy’ such as this system is called.
@@joesteers1940 A completely voluntary system. Where property rights are acknowledged. An anarchist system where everyone is held accountable for their actions with a legal system that is free of politics.
@@MongooseTacticool I was thinking exactly the same. Jefferson sounds like he was raised by the farmer from The Fast Show : "It's the drainage in the lower fields sir".
What i dont get is how these dutch & germans completely abandoned their mother tongue! You would think USA would be a multilingual society because of the ancestry of its citizens or at least have 50% of the population bilingual in german and English but it seems the germans not only spoke english outdoors but made it their mother tongue as well.
[Adams has a] "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." - Thomas Jefferson in the newspaper _The Prospect Before Us_ 1800
@@markymark829 neither. It was James Callender, who was Jefferson's political hatchet man. Conveniently drowned in 3 feet of water a week before he could testify in a court case that he was paid by Jefferson to undermine the government.
The Alien and Sedition Act was the absolute blackest stain on Adams' reputation, and it has clouded his legacy ever since. It also drove an even deeper wedge into his friendship with Jefferson.
@nexus1g umm owning slaves and being a hypocrite given the whole “all men are created equal” in a lot of ways Adams was a better man, very against slavery and a good leader
@@jonathanfranck8973 To be fair, Jefferson also didn't own slaves until he inherited them with two plantations from his father-in-law. Regardless, the Founders were well aware of their hypocrisy, and were not ok with it. However, it's similar to a communist saying today in the US that capitalism is evil and enslaves people -- he can't readily get by very well without living within the system he was born into. Even the Adams' dealt with slaves to some degree. When the whole system doesn't change, it's extremely difficult for individuals within it to not live with it.
@Energised Voyages And yet the people can be a mob, unrestrained by the Constitution. And unscrupulous leaders can use the power of government against the people. It is a tricky balance.
Admiral Talax Alien and Sedation Acts were unconstitutional. So it doesn’t matter what their representatives would have wanted, it was a violation. Period. Congress shall make no law. First sentence of the 1st amendment.
@@MidNiteR32 I didn't say they weren't. I just wanted Jefferson to respond to the congressional question. And congrats on being able to read the bill of rights, like we all can.
Funny to watch an exchange between opposing Parties at the executive level. In our first Presidential elections, 2nd place became the Vice President...until Jefferson became President?
Simona Cannizzo , Right, Jefferson was President from 1801-1809. He presided over the change to the Constitution (the 12th Amendment) that changed how our Vice President was chosen. It was an interesting concept to think of the President having to Govern with a direct rival in charge of the Senate.
It seems like Adams only had Washington as a precedent to refer to as an American leader. Becoming the second president, he probably learned overtime the stressful challenges of not only potential war, but minding the rights of the people. He also needed no more division like there was during the revolutionary war.
people often forget that we are not a full Democracy and in fact are a Constitutional Republic. soo many of the founders did not like a Democracy because it left the 49% in favor of the 51%.
When they’re being bombarded by propaganda at their schools and in the culture? Yes, I can easily see them doing it. A mix of lies, propaganda, and some immoral ideas about what is acceptable and you get antifa and blm
@Spiteful Ogre That is the worst bullshit excuse making I've seen. The people pulling down the current statues either do not care about their origins or they look at the entire country as evil. This goes beyond the Confederate statues (which I agree with pulling down). There are no confederate Statues in San Francisco but there is one of Grant, that got pulled down. By the way, those statues were not erected 100 years ago, they were erected 50 years ago. You don't even have your history correct. -------> "Study Jefferson, you ignorant degenerate: "I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical." You mean the same Jefferson who foolishly supported and even meddled in the politics of the French Revolution which led to the reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon? You mean the same Jefferson who was irresponsible with money and died with his estate in debt because he loved lavish things? The same debt that prevented him from freeing more than 6 slaves out of the 600 hundred he owned? Jefferson could be stubborn and over opinionated which is why he feuded with Hamilton a lot (and even Adams). He was wrong on his opinions of greater state power over the federal government. As far as revolution, Jefferson was so drunk with the success of the American Revolution that he overlooked that most revolutions have end results that are worse than the tyrant being overthrown. The revolutionaries are more tyrannical than the tyrant they overthrew (as what happened in the French Revolution). America was the exception to the rule of revolution. Jefferson did many great things, but he was not GOD.
1:44 - Valuable lesson here: sometimes what the people want is not in the best interest of their country. Before and even during the American Civil War, the majority of American citizens did not support the end of slavery. When Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, a lot of his generals and people in the North were like, "Wait, what?! That's not what we're fighting about!" Lincoln knew that the only way the Union was going to continue and eventually win the Civil War both on and off the battlefield was to take the moral high ground, and he did just that by pivoting the War to a mission to end slavery rather than just preserving the Union. Even though the majority of the people didn't want it, and his administration never much cared for it, Lincoln signed it because he knew this was the right thing to do for the country as a whole. That's one of the reasons why he was assassinated: Booth (the guy who shot him) claimed he was a tyrant because the Emancipation was seen in the South as a power mad tyrant doing what HE wants and not what his PEOPLE wanted. Hence why Booth screamed "Sic Semper Tyrannis" to Lincoln when he shot him. Just goes to show you: The People are always right in a Democracy, until they are wrong. Also, a good leader gives people what they NEED, not what they WANT.
Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation to gain any moral high ground. It was a weapon of war against the South. Why do you suppose he didn't free the slaves in the north, the ones under his own control?
@@jshepard152 He most certainly did do it to get a moral high ground, which in turn kept any European powers from entering on the side of the CSA. They had all already outlawed slavery in its entirety, but were cordial with the South because of its lucrative trade goods. By officially setting the narrative of the war as one of emancipation Lincoln made supporting the CSA morally unjustifiable to Europe. He never needed to free the slaves in the North, as slavery had already been officially abolished in those states by 1804, and all remnants of it had disappeared by the time of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation most certainly was a strategic play on Lincoln's part, but it was also a moral one. The two are not exclusive.
Jefferson was right it all started with Hamilton and his northern idea of power and finance through a central bank at the expense of the southern states.
@@taylorahern3755 Thomas Jefferson was correct that the Missouri Compromise would only further divide the country on the issue of slavery which would eventually result in a war to end it and less than 40 years after his death he was correct
So the crux of the issue isn’t the act itself, but that such an act could be signed into law by the President having gone through the channels of the Legislative branch, the “voice of the people” which drew them up and voted on them. Now sure you could argue that the system was put in place out of naivety or downright sinister intentions.
An argument still being made today. My position on objectionable political speech is that if you don't like an idea, then argue your counter position. You don't ban books.
Even this early on, it was quite plain to see that it would be impossible to restrain government -- as it always had been elsewhere in the past. Unfortunately, figures like Gustave de Molinari and Lysander Spooner would not come along and publish their treatises for several decades (1850 or so), and by then it would be far too late to change America's course. Moreover, Marx debuted around the same time, and achieved massive impact whereas the aforementioned two -- to this day -- remain mere blips on the radar screen. Which makes a very sad statement about human nature.
None of the Founding Fathers were Dutch; all but 18 of them were born in the Thirteen Colonies, and those that weren't were from elsewhere in the British Empire.
The representatives are not the people, and as men of power can use their influence to once elected to subvert the rights of the people to maintain personal power, hence the right of the state to poll the public. Jefferson seems to look at the majority as a possible aristocracy arising in the law-making body that the POTUS must see through and extinguish with his authority for the sake of the people, and likely sees Adams using the majority vote as an excuse. Some things should not be held to popular vote; the freedom to critique government doings freely without fear of persecution is something that can be unanimously voted against, yet should never be allowed to occur; an eternal protection. This, I believe is Jefferson's argument here; the senate itself should be removed and replaced of members before such measures are ever taken. Adams is following a strict study of the rule of law rather than applying ethical and foresighted understanding through their shared experiences. This opposing nature of Law not necessarily synonymous with Righteous is a modern dilemma, and likely a permanent one.
The nation will always be on the precipice of division. Adam's philosophy of protecting the nation's safety runs counter Jefferson's belief that the president's obligation is to protect the rights of its citizens. Through the separation of powers, the president's job is to protect the interests of the citizenry against the exploits of the other branches of government. Adams' belief is timely in that I hear this same mantra again and again, meanwhile the individual rights of the citizenry continues to erode. This is the difference between Adam's belief in protecting the government machine versus Jefferson's belief in protecting liberty. As usual, Jefferson was right.
Two men representing different sides in the political spectrum of the day, yet having a civilized argument. Compare that with the completely uncivil atmosphere of the present.
John Adams is one of our greatest founding fathers. If not for him we wouldn't have had a constitution or a first amendment. Yet here he disregarded those rights for which he fought. Thomas Jefferson once wrote "all men are created equal"... yet he owned many men, and considered them inferior. Both heroes. Both hypocrites. Thus it is with most of our founders. The founding of the US is truly fascinating.
Jefferson freed his slaves. And I don't believe there is any written words by him that would indicate he believed they were inferior. Jefferson also wanted to tackle the issue of slavery while writing the declaration of independence. He was probably one of the biggest proponents for ending slavery.
@@Dutchman294 1) through his entire life he freed a grand total of 2 slaves despite being willed money specifically to buy freedom for slaves. When he died 130 of his slaves were auctioned off by his family, and his sex slave (who was kept) wasn't even freed. 2) he wrote at length and in multiple places that he thought that "the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson was a vile hypocrite. Enlightened enough to know what he was doing was evil, but too cowardly or sociopathic to stop.
@@Dutchman294 and another thing. He was NOT one of the biggest proponents of ending slavery. He became completely silent about the topic as time went on, and he actively opposed measures that would make states free because apparently it might threaten the union. Well, he set the stage for the civil war, which definitely threatened the union. He conveniently convinced himself that slavery would go away on its own... Meanwhile investing in slaves because he knew their value was increasing.
1st of all that was the majority opinion of the government not the people, which are not always the same. 2nd of all so what if its the majority? The minority deserves free speech too
To hear the story of why and how the Declaration of Independence happened and the effects it has had on America and the world, go to Peter Fenzel, Episode 11: The Declaration of Independence on RU-vid - no distortions, Pure History!! You will love it !!!!
Sad to see Adams like this: both he and Jefferson sat at the Continental Congress during a time of division, and knew they couldn't bully other states into agreement. Now Adams is acting like the tyrant and authoritarian all of his enemies claimed he would be.
Imagine this debate in modern day politics "You can't protect the nation by attacking the... the, uh... the uh..." "Sleepy Joe here semes to have forgotten that the representatives are the ones who have proposed the act... you wouldn't want to go against the will of the people now? [Turns to the audience] Chant it with me, will of the people! Will of the people! Will of the people!"
US government in 2021: "We're not taking away your right to speak, we are just withdrawing your protections on every platform on which you wish to speak".
@@seymourbutz4821 It is ye who needeth the taking of a grip. In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, the Biden administration has been telling silicon valley who to censor. At that juncture, the private has been co-opted by the state as its 'Cat's Paw'.
Honestly this isn't so surprising. Think of McCarthyism and the Patriot act. This is an earlier form of stifling protest in times of war or fear of war. However, it was unsophisticated and brazen, later politicians would learn from this example.
Here lies the fundamental problem with democracy. The people often clamor for tyranny. Jefferson, beliving human nature to be fundamentaly good and inclined to liberty has no answer for this.
Adams wants to use (fines, threats, armed enforcers, prisons, shooting) to tell the people what they can say. Defends it as following the will of the people. If you are using the threat of violence to control what people say, that is the opposite of following the will of the people. This should give one pause to re-evaluate the entire situation. TJ was right but in this scene both men are very poorly spoken.
"Opposite of following the will of the people" - Not necessarily, because "the people" is not a homogeneous entity. And therein lies the problem, democracy is "the tyranny of the majority". If the majority of people want certain ideas to be suppressed, don't you have a duty as President to suppress them? Or, should you stick up for a general principle, albeit a "politically incorrect" one. This is why countries have constitutions: to establish the rules before events happen.
Jefferson and his values represented what the US elite wanted US society to be like, to believe, and Adams and his actions represented what the US elite would have to do in order to maintain a coherent nation and empire. Fascinating stuff. I see more than a little bit of Lenin in Adams pragmatic view of affairs, though of course their ideologies could not be more different.
The stench of body odor in the air from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson must have been as suffocating to their ability to speak freely as The Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams and Jefferson didn’t shower every single day (not even once a week most of the time) nor did they brush their teeth and use mouthwash as we all do on a daily basis today.
Too bad the founders didn't foresee that the first amendment would be ignored holy by Big Tech and social media social justice warriors who will seek out to ensure that you are punished in every way possible except criminal for any speech when we have or any speech advocating for free speech of all as if you're some type of sympathizer because you won't ban other speech.
It wasn’t revoked... it was set to expire at the end of John Adams presidency, so they could criticize Thomas Jefferson in case John Adams lost the election.
When Adams says, "The people's representatives demanded these acts" is when Jefferson suddenly shifted from being a spirit of the law to a letter of the law kind of guy.
It had to have been painful for these two dear friends to find themselves in the position where they had to confront each other like this. They were so close they were practically a mirror for each other. And in this moment, they had to hold up the mirror to each other where they each faced the darker side of their duties. It was fortunate that they were later able to recover their friendship after they both retired from public office.
The hilarity of Jefferson - he who is against Adams actions in regards to the Sedition Act…would use his executive powers as President in an attempt to not only expand them but use them in giving blank pardons in regards to the actions of his Vice President Burr, but go beyond what Adams did It’s easy to criticize the office, but not so when you hold it
Jefferson was attempting to thwart the Burr conspiracy; liberty is not the synonym of anarchy. Liberty secures the rights of everyone equally, while tyranny is the imposed prejudices arising from anarchy.
