Okay, so I'm a little biased being a distant, (Very distant.) relative of the former President(s). But, I've really enjoyed watching this film. So far I've seen Parts one and two a total of three times. Very interesting.

I like how the personalities of the characters were brought out. Made them seem more human. Not made out to be like gods whose farts sound like a chorus of angels and smell of gardenias.:D Much more believeable than the way movies about the Founding Fathers used to be made, (See previous sentence.). I, for one like it this way.:thmbsp:

Thoughts, anyone?:scratch2:

Dave

We're keeping up with it here.

Paul is a fine actor.:thmbsp:

I've heard good things about it, including Rush who speaks well of it.

Would like to see it, but I gave up HBO a few years ago when IMHO it became pretty worthless (to me).

PBS shot a series titled "The Adams Chronicles" back when I was in college. I was an extra in that, portraying a "Civil War" * soldier. It was fun. The episode that I was in involved a descendant of John Adams writing a letter to his wife about training the troops.



* The term "Civil War" is technically wrong for he conflict from 1861 to 1865. A civil war is fought over the control of the government. The CSA did not seek control of the Federal government, they had seceded from the union and started their own government. They did not make any attempt to "take over" the federal goverment which would have still been in control in the non-seceding states.

I've heard good things about it, including Rush who speaks well of it.

Would like to see it, but I gave up HBO a few years ago when IMHO it became pretty worthless (to me).

PBS shot a series titled "The Adams Chronicles" back when I was in college. I was an extra in that, portraying a "Civil War" * soldier. It was fun. The episode that I was in involved a descendant of John Adams writing a letter to his wife about training the troops.



* The term "Civil War" is technically wrong for he conflict from 1861 to 1865. A civil war is fought over the control of the government. The CSA did not seek control of the Federal government, they had seceded from the union and started their own government. They did not make any attempt to "take over" the federal goverment which would have still been in control in the non-seceding states.

So 70's are you, in a polite southern way, describing the war of northern aggression as just that, as opposed to a war :rolleyes:- just joking of course - you make an interesting argument regarding the term "Civil War"...a

So 70's are you, in a polite southern way, describing the war of northern aggression as just that, as opposed to a war :rolleyes:- just joking of course - you make an interesting argument regarding the term "Civil War"...a

I grew up in Charleston SC where the "Landed Gentry" refers to it as "Our most recent hostilities". :yes:

I realize this was a movie about a man who was, essentially, a political figure.
But, I had hoped it wouldn't turn into a political discussion. That belongs in another forum, I would say.

Respectfully,

Dave

I realize this was a movie about a man who was, essentially, a political figure.
But, I had hoped it wouldn't turn into a political discussion. That belongs in another forum, I would say.

Respectfully,

Dave

This is NOT a political discussion. This is a historical discussion.

There is no animous in my posts or the post from Mr. Snoid.

Reread these posts and perhaps you will see that. Also, the similes would be a clue as well.

I do find it interesting that you view it as political when you take into account the subject of your avatar! :scratch2:

However, in deference for the better good, any further discussion of the subject on my part will be confined to a different forum.

It's called the War of the Rebellion in the official records of the United States Army, that seems a properly descriptive term.

The Adams show is pretty good though it glosses over the fact that two of the soldiers put on trial for the Boston "Massacre" were convicted of manslaughter. Also glossed over is that Adams picked several Tories for the jury and that the dying declaration of Patrick Carr, an Irishman mortally wounded in the affair, was used by Adams to great effect. Carr stated to his doctor that the Redcoats (several of whom were Irishmen by the way) were justified and acting in self defense. Carr stated that the Redcoats had exercised unusual forebearance and that he forgave the man who had shot him.

The doctor's testimony was the first time in a American court that a dying declaration overcame the objection to hearsay.

Interesting the the British government that we considered a tyranny and rebelled against allowed it's soldiers to be indicted and tried in a Colonial court. Pretty fair of them doncha' think?

This is NOT a political discussion. This is a historical discussion.

There is no animous in my posts or the post from Mr. Snoid.

Reread these posts and perhaps you will see that. Also, the similes would be a clue as well.

I do find it interesting that you view it as political when you take into account the subject of your avatar! :scratch2:

However, in deference for the better good, any further discussion of the subject on my part will be confined to a different forum.

What's wrong with my avatar?:D

What's wrong with my avatar?:D


There are still people out there to whom the Great Rebellion, and it's defense of slavery and aristocratic priviledge, was a noble cause and Lincoln a great villian for suppressing said rebellion and defending The United States and the outcome of free elections. And for destroying slavery of course. Go figure.

It's called the War of the Rebellion in the official records of the United States Army, that seems a properly descriptive term.

The Adams show is pretty good though it glosses over the fact that two of the soldiers put on trial for the Boston "Massacre" were convicted of manslaughter. Also glossed over is that Adams picked several Tories for the jury and that the dying declaration of Patrick Carr, an Irishman mortally wounded in the affair, was used by Adams to great effect. Carr stated to his doctor that the Redcoats (several of whom were Irishmen by the way) were justified and acting in self defense. Carr stated that the Redcoats had exercised unusual forebearance and that he forgave the man who had shot him.

The doctor's testimony was the first time in a American court that a dying declaration overcame the objection to hearsay.

Interesting the the British government that we considered a tyranny and rebelled against allowed it's soldiers to be indicted and tried in a Colonial court. Pretty fair of them doncha' think?

Intersting, Tom. As we all know, we can't really depend on Hollywood for total accuracy. Omissions will be made, other things will be overemphacised (Sp?), etc. But, I still found it an interesting movie.

Yep, pretty darn fair. I beleive that may have been the point.

Thanks for the input.

Dave

What's wrong with my avatar?:D

Although I will be violating your wishes that this thread not become political, I believe that your choice of avatar would indicate that you would view any discussion of the wrongly-named "civil war' as political.

I find that the assassination of Mr. Lincoln was very unfortunate for the south. His desire to reunite the country after the conflict had ended would have resulted in far better treatment of the south than what was received under the Johnson administration. Mr. Booth did a great disservice the south as well as the rest of the country.

My earlier post simply states that the term "civil war" is inaccurate. A more accurate term would be "war of succession". Feel free to look up the definition of "a civil war".

As we all know, we can't really depend on Hollywood for total accuracy. Omissions will be made, other things will be overemphacised (Sp?), etc. But, I still found it an interesting movie.

Dave


Oh yeah Dave, things must be glossed over and made more dramatic too; that's legit in a movie which afterall has different goals than history book. I think this movie is very good.

I take far more issue with poorly done documentaries like Ken Burn's "Civil War" which holds itself to a high standard and gets so much wrong.

There are still people out there to whom the Great Rebellion, and it's defense of slavery and aristocratic priviledge, was a noble cause and Lincoln a great villian for suppressing said rebellion and defending The United States and the outcome of free elections. And for destroying slavery of course. Go figure.

Oh, I see.

Again, Thanks Tom.

I'll leave it alone from here on out. I've had my fun, time for me to stop.

Dave

My earlier post simply states that the term "civil war" is inaccurate. A more accurate term would be "war of succession". Feel free to look up the definition of "a civil war".


Hah! What would be more accurate? ;)

There are still people out there to whom the Great Rebellion, and it's defense of slavery and aristocratic priviledge, was a noble cause and Lincoln a great villian for suppressing said rebellion and defending The United States and the outcome of free elections. And for destroying slavery of course. Go figure.

My mention that the use of the descriptor "Civil War" for the 1861-1865 conflict is incorrect gives you no right to make incorrect assumptions.

My discussion was limited to the inaccuracy of the term for the conflict.

If anyone seeks to fight this war again in this forum, I will ask the moderator to close it.

I will be glad to discuss the issue via PMs, but not in this forum, which has now suffered from a hijack.

I am here for the music and the gear! :yes:

My mention that the use of the descriptor "Civil War" for the 1861-1865 conflict gives you no right to make incorrect assumptions.

My discussion was limited to the inaccuracy of the term for the conflict.

:


As an American it's my God given right to make incorrect assumptions.

As for accuracy I suggest you learn the difference between a war of succession (Wars of the Roses) and a war of secession (The Civil War). ;)

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/chinchin.jpg

As an American it's my God given right to make incorrect assumptions.

As for accuracy I suggest you learn the difference between a war of succession (Wars of the Roses) and a war of secession (The Civil War). ;)

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/chinchin.jpg

It's not a matter of accuracy, it was a matter of spelling.

You are correct, as an American you have the right to make incorrect assumptions. Feel free to continue to do so. I have read your posts on other threads and have found them to be well thought out and well expressed. I was disappointed that you made the assumption that you did.

As one who likes to make posts with correct spelling and grammar, I am disappointed that I made the spelling error.

It's not a matter of accuracy, it was a matter of spelling.

As one who likes to make posts with correct spelling and grammar, I am disappointed that I made the spelling error.


Oh, I know it was just spelling and not the concepts, I was just tweaking you. And I had to make a couple of trips over to dictionary.com so as not to leave myself open for a countertweak. ;)

Kind Regards

Now boys play nice:nono:

Just to get this thing back on topic...how bout ol' Ben Franklin's charactor in this series...a religious prud he was not...a

I also have seen the first 2 episodes. Very good acting job by Mrs. Adams - Laura Linney and Thomas Jefferson. After watching it I found out Sam Adams the great beermeister was his cousin...

70salesguy and Tom are demonstrating how to have a genuinely friendly argument. Good show, chaps.

I, too, have enjoyed the Ben Franklin shenanigans. I'm anxious to see how the Jefferson character opens up as Adams and Jefferson have some friendly arguments.

Ken

In Paris Adams did the work while Franklin got the press.

The indispensible man of the Revolution was Washington, all are pygmies compared. Without ole George the Brits win, period. In which case we may have actually been better off but that's another story.;)

Sam Adams was an anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigot.

I'm anxious to see how the Jefferson character opens up as Adams and Jefferson have some friendly arguments.

Ken

Yes, me too.

Bring on parts 3(&4?). Can't wait.
Also looking foreward to the Jefferson/Adams debate.

In Paris Adams did the work while Franklin got the press.

The indispensible man of the Revolution was Washington, all are pygmies compared. Without ole George the Brits win, period. In which case we may have actually been better off but that's another story.;)

Sam Adams was an anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigot.

How in Gods name could anyone hate the Irish? Astounding.

So, what about parts 3&4?

Dave