John Adams

[dread31]

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. 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.

Thoughts, anyone?

Dave

[Urizen]

We're keeping up with it here.

Paul is a fine actor.

[70salesguy]

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.

[Mr. Snoid]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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 - just joking of course - you make an interesting argument regarding the term "Civil War"...a

[70salesguy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Snoid

So 70's are you, in a polite southern way, describing the war of northern aggression as just that, as opposed to a war - 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".

[dread31]

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

[70salesguy]

Originally Posted by dread31

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!

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

[Tom Brennan]

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?

[dread31]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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!

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?

[Tom Brennan]

Originally Posted by dread31

What's wrong with my avatar?

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.

[dread31]

Originally Posted by Tom Brennan

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

[70salesguy]

Originally Posted by dread31

What's wrong with my avatar?

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".

[Tom Brennan]

Originally Posted by dread31

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.

[dread31]

Originally Posted by Tom Brennan

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

[Tom Brennan]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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?