Adams' Alien & Sedition Acts

This Ain't No
Fairness Doctrine Here!

One of the major criticisms from the historical community of David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John Adams is that he repeatedly downplays the significance of the Alien & Sedition Acts (for a link to these critics click here). In HBO's John Adams miniseries, the birth of the Alien & Sedition Acts are portrayed as being the idea of several cabinet members, and not from John Adams himself. And while it is true that his cabinet played an influential role in the development of the Alien & Sedition Acts, it is important to remember that both John and Abigail Adams were instrumental in creating these acts as well, and in fact were central to the creation of the Alien & Sedition Acts as opposed to being mere spectators as McCullough suggests.

First off, nobody can or should doubt the magnitude of the John Adams Presidency. As the successor of Washington, Adams faced challenges that would have toppled most leaders. The mere fact that Adams was following a living legend would have toppled almost any other successor. In addition, Adams was burdened with a mounting crisis with France over the seizure of American ships and sailors, not to mention the fact that the United States was still strapped with several economic and domestic problems at home. Needless to say, Adams' plate was full. It's no wonder why Washington [allegedly] whispered to Adams at the conclusion of his oath of office, "Ay, I am fairly out and you fairly in. Let's see which of us will be the happier."

It was because of this scrutiny that John Adams -- with the help of others -- created the Alien & Sedition Acts. Under these acts, the Federalists hoped to endow the President with the power to, "expel any non-naturalized persons of foreign birth whom the President judges to be of danger to the peace and safety of the United States without a hearing and without specifying any reason.” In addition, these laws called for the punishment of citizens who, "unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States…or to impede the operation of any law of the United States." They also stated that "any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government…or either the house of the Congress of the United States; or the President…with intent to defame" was punishable by imprisonment of up to five years"

Needless to say, the Democratic-republican reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts was extremely swift. Recalling the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson stated that, "this bill [the Sedition Act] and the Alien bill are both so palpably in the teeth of the constitution," that it was irrational for the Federalists to, "shew they mean to pay no respect to it." Jefferson went on to label the supporters of the Alien & Sedition Acts as, “monarchists,” “Tories,” “anti-republicans,” and “monocrats.”

In response to the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson -- along with the help of James Madison -- set out on a crusade to not only destroy the acts, but to also obliterate any chance for John Adams to win reelection. In what became known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson made the claim that:

The several States composing the US. Of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…and one of the Amendments to the constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, therefore the act of Congress…are altogether void and of no force.

As the election of 1800 drew closer, President Adams found himself in a political mess that virtually consumed him. The Dem-Republicans had labeled the President as a tyrant, and called the Alien and Sedition Acts, "the most abominable and degrading Executive act that could fall from the lips of the first magistrate of an independent people." In an effort to demonstrate just how "tyrannical" the Adams Administration had become, Jefferson called on renowned pamphleteer James Callender, a long-time enemy to the Federalists who had attacked the likes of Alexander Hamilton by exposing his affair with Maria Reynolds to the public. This time, Callender was to turn his sights on the president himself. In his popular pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, Callender pulled out all the punches by boldly proclaiming that John Adams had become little more than a tyrant:

The reign of Mr. Adams has been one continued tempest of malignant passions. Indeed, the president has never opened his lips, or lifted his pen without threatening and scolding; the grand object of his administration has been to exasperate the rage of contending parties to culminate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions.

The Federalist response to Callender's "treason" was swift. Callender was quickly jailed in Richmond and sentenced by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase to five years imprisonment. As a result, Callender quickly became a poster boy of sorts for the Jefferson campaign. Callender's imprisonment illustrated to the common man just how far Adams had gone. In essence, Callender became Jefferson's 19th century version of "Joe the Plumber."

In the end, the Alien & Sedition Acts helped to solidify the popular message of the Democratic-republicans, which, in turn, led to the election of their beloved Thomas Jefferson. The popularity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, combined with the "mud-slinging" efforts of James Callender, helped to ensure the demise of the Adams Administration. For the Federalists, this was a blow that caused a severe setbacks to their cause. For John Adams, the Alien & Sedition Acts became the darkest stain of his presidency, one which continues to stick with him to this day.

Though often considered to be the biggest blunder of his presidency, it is important for us to understand why John Adams embraced the Alien & Sedition Acts. To be certain, his goal was not to become a tyrant. Instead, Adams was trying to protect the presidency -- and the nation for that matter -- from what he deemed to be a serious threat to the country's security. This is in no way an excuse for the Adams Administration. The Alien & Sedition Acts were, after all, entirely unconstitutional. With that said, it is still important for us to understand the motives behind these acts.

Here is a clip from the HBO miniseries, John Adams, which presents and interesting perspective behind the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts:



***On a side note, it's worth mentioning that upon his election to the presidency, Thomas Jefferson pardoned James Callender for his "slanderous" acts against President Adams. However, Callender was not satisfied. Upon his release, Callender petitioned the president for an appointment to the Postmaster General of Richmond. President Jefferson did not acquiesce to his demands. As a result, Callender turned his attack on Jefferson. In a series of articles, Callender accused Jefferson of committing a "gross and vile affair" with one of his female slaves...the one and only Sally Hemmings! Oh the irony of history!***

George Washington's Inauguration

As fellow blogger Ray Soller (of American Creation) has noted, there is a great deal of skepticism over whether or not George Washington uttered the phrase, "So help me God" at the conclusion of his oath of office. To be honest, this is an issue that I have never before considered. Like most people, I probably just assumed that the historical record accurately accounted for the authenticity of this event. However, as Mr. Soller has pointed out in his excellent article (Freeman's Oath - reference), there is strong reason to not only question but to doubt the legitimacy of the "So help me God" claim.

Like most history nerds, I was a devout follower of HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams. One of the most powerful scenes of the entire series is the inauguration of George Washington as the republic's first president. Not only does the scene attempt to recreate the oath of office -- including Washington uttering "So help me God," -- but the whole clip effectively arouses a sense of Christian patriotism, which I am sure was extremely effective in invoking a "spiritual" response from the average viewer.

To be perfectly honest, I have absolutly no idea if Washington did or did not conclude his oath of office with, "So help me God." I do believe, however, that Mr. Soller has shed light on some very important evidence that should be considered in detail. Hopefully we can continue this discussion, including the views of those who support the "So help me God" claim.

Here is the Washington Inauguration according to HBO's John Adams:

Conclusion of John Adams

The conclusion of HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams took place last night with its 7th and final installment. Last night's episode, entitled "Peacefield," covered the history of John & Abigail Adams during their retirement years. Yet again, HBO did a remarkable job of personalizing the history. The portrayal of Nabby's breast removal and her subsequent death, along with the portrayal of the death of Abigail Adams were stirring scenes, which gave the audience an intimate view of the "humanity" of these characters. I commend HBO for successfully bringing a human element into the equation. The study of history can often neglect the human reality of the past.

With that said, I would like to mention a few of my overall impressions of the miniseries.

The "Good Stuff"
1.) As mentioned above, HBO brought a human element to the history, and did so in a very effective manner.
2.) The miniseries did a great job of eliminating many of the myths that surround our nation's founding. For example, the Founding Fathers regularly disagreed, and often disliked one another. The establishment of the United States was anything but a smooth and unanimous consensus. This miniseries brings this to light.
3.) The recreation of the various cities, homes, clothing, etc. was well-researched and very accurate. The viewer gained as genuine a recreation of colonial America that is humanly possible.

The "Wrong Stuff"
1.) I realize that I have mentioned this on numerous occasions, but I absolutely detest the fact that this miniseries "skims" across the surface of the history of this time period. There is little to no "deep" history that is developed throughout the story. I also feel that HBO cruised through roughly 60 years of history in the blink of an eye. Essentially, I am saying that HBO bit off more than it could chew. I think the series would have been better if HBO had chosen to focus on a specific time period (say, the war period of 1775-1783, or the Washington/Adams presidencies) instead of breezing through the entire life of John Adams. There simply was not enough time to do all of that history justice.

2.) HBO seemed to "overplay" the role of John Adams in many instances. Don't get me wrong, I realize that Adams is of paramount importance to the American Revolution. I also recognize the fact that this is a miniseries devoted to Adams specifically. With that said, I still feel that there could have been more time devoted to the war itself, along with the important contributions that were made by Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. I was disappointed to see that the contributions of these men were essentially omitted from the storyline.

In conclusion, I think HBO did justice to a story that is almost completely ignored by the movie and television industry. It is wonderful that the story of the American Revolution was finally attempted by the film industry. Kudos to Tom Hanks & Co. for going out on a limb and pulling it off!

My overall grade for the miniseries: B+

The award for best performance: Laura Linney for her portrayal of Abigail Adams. I thought it was spot on!

The award for best episode: Episode #2 (Independence).

The award for best scene: The death of Abigail Adams. It was extremely powerful and brought home the reality of her death and its impact on John Adams. We watched these two characters over 7 weeks, and to see her die was a powerful moment in the series. I almost felt like I was there!

HBO's John Adams: Episode 5

Episode #5, "Unite or Die" is in the books! As hard as it may be to believe, HBO's hit miniseries John Adams has almost reached its conclusion. I guess that the old saying, "all good things must come to an end" is true after all. It has been an absolute joy to not only watch this miniseries, but to engage in a meaningful discussion on the film's historical accuracies/inaccuracies with all of you. Speaking for myself, the series has become quite the learning experience, thanks in large part to your input.

Like most of you, I watched episode #5 last night with great anticipation. Going into this week's episode I knew that the miniseries would be covering the early years of the American republic, which is a time period I greatly enjoy learning about. Overall, I think that HBO did an excellent job at capturing the true nature on America's infant years as a republic. The series brought out the convoluted nature of America's political atmosphere, which eventually drove a rift between many of our Founding Fathers. Episode #5 also helped to put a personal spin on the Adams family's domestic quarrels, which were anything but peaceful.

I only have a few critiques of this week's installment. Most of them center on the portrayal of various political issues that came up in episode #5. First off, I want to YET AGAIN stress the fact that this miniseries is only skimming the historical surface of the American Revolution. It is impossible to give a detailed portrayal of George Washington's eight-year administration in only one hour. I lament the fact that so many viewers will miss so much history that is critical in gaining an understanding of the early American republic.

My main problem with last night's episode centers on its depiction of the Jay Treaty. There can be no doubt that the French/British conflict propelled the infant United States into a very difficult dilemma. There is also no doubt that a large part of the American population favored an alliance with France, and that the announcement of the Jay Treaty angered many across the continent. With that said, however, it is also important to remember that a large part of the nation defended Washington's decision to make a treaty with Britain. HBO's portrayal of George Washington being hated by the masses is grossly overdone. Of course there were protests against Washington for the Jay Treaty, but there were also protests against France as well. As historian James Sharp points out in his book, American Politics in the Early Republic, "The treaty that Jay negotiated, and that Washington sent to the Senate divided the country like no other issue in the history of the young republic." Washington's decision was controversial to say the least, but it did not cause the majority of Americans to hate him (as is suggested in the film).

In fact, Washington's decision to accept a treaty with Britain was an ingenious move to say the least. As Joseph Ellis writes in his book, Founding Brothers:

It bet, in effect, on England rather than France as the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic. It recognized the massive dependence of the American economy on trade with England…it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century. Mostly, it postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one.

Washington's decision to avoid war at all costs and to align America's economic future with England instead of France was arguably the most important decision of his presidency.

In addition, it would have been a huge plus if the miniseries did a better job of portraying George Washington's departure from the presidency as the illustrious event that it was. Washington's ability to willingly give up power set a precedence that no president dared to break in almost 200 years. That was an event that deserved more attention.

Another historical event that could have used further development was Alexander Hamilton's plan of economic assumption. The miniseries only devotes a small segment to this all-important issue. In fact, Hamilton seems to be somewhat demonized in the film's portrayal of his economic policies. We would be wise, however, to remember that Alexander Hamilton's plan of assumption did more to set America on the road to prosperity than any other act of government policy.

Review of John Adams: Episode #4

Here is yet another installment in the saga that is John Adams. After last week's lackluster episode, which fell dramatically short of the excitement exhibited in episodes #1 & #2, I was hoping and praying that the series would return to its roots. Though episode #4 (entitled "Reunion") was still somewhat slow and even a little boring, I have to give kudos to HBO for bringing a personal element of the Adams Family to life. Regardless of all the letters between the couple, no historian could portray the longing and affection that was shared between John and Abigail Adams. Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney's performances in this regard were outstanding (in my opinion). Their ability to recreate the reunion of the couple was very impressive.

I was also intrigued by how the series portrayed the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and the Adams Family. Again, I think HBO did an excellent job in this regard. John and Abigail's trip to Britain was also very well-done.

As I have stated so many times, my main problem with this whole miniseries has been the fact that it moves far too quickly, and as a result, too much history is omitted in the process. I wish that HBO would have focused on a particular part of the Adams story instead of skimming the historical surface of his life. I also found myself somewhat disappointed with the depiction of George Washington's inauguration. Don't get me wrong, it was very powerful, but I wish that the scene would have been better developed. I felt like it was simply thrown together. Again, it must be that the history is moving way too fast. With all that said, however, I must admit that I am thoroughly enjoying HBO's production. Special kudos to Laura Linney in her portrayal of Abigail Adams. I think she has been spot on throughout the film.

A Few More Observations of John Adams

If you are a regular reader of the numerous blogs on the history of the American Revolution, you are probably more than aware of the fact that HBO's new miniseries John Adams has been receiving an incredible amount of attention. Historians and history buffs alike have put this film under a microscope, scrutinizing every last detail. Naturally, this may deter some viewers that watch only for pure entertainment. On the other hand, historical scrutiny allows other viewers to analyze the film for historical purposes, essentially making the miniseries a learning tool.

I for one am all for scrutinizing historical films. I believe that it forces the viewer to stretch his/her understanding and knowledge of the time period. Keeping this in mind, here are a few additional observations of the John Adams miniseries:

• Colonial American society LOVED to drink. John Hancock, for example, kept at least a gallon of rum punch at his bedside. George Washington was the largest distiller of rum in the colonies prior to the outbreak of war. Alcohol was a large part of the every day colonial experience. People drank alcohol back then in the same way that bottled water is consumed today. There is little to no depiction of this in the film.
  
• The film's portrayal of political thought and ideology are limited to say the least. For example, there is absolutely no reference to Thomas Paine or to the massive impact of his book Common Sense. In the Continental Congress, John Adams is seen as an idealist instead of the pragmatic realist that he actually was. Historian Jeff Pasley said it best in his review of this film when he wrote the following:
  
  Like the David McCullough source material, this episode was atrocious when dealing with politics or political thought. Tom Paine and Common Sense are not even mentioned, nor is there any sense of the pressure the delegates were feeling from the political radicalism that was boiling over in the streets of Philadelphia during the summer of 1776, a source of great consternation to the real Adams. (Ordinary Americans appear only in occasional scenes of silent soldiers and disease victims, and in a nice polite crowd that hears the Declaration read at the end.) Here the speech Adams gives in reply to John Dickinson during the final independence debate comes out of nowhere and sounds more like Paine than Adams, proposing a national republic and extolling revolution in a way that would have had the most of the delegates fleeing back home or to the British if anyone one had actually said that kind of stuff on the floor of the Continental Congress. The real speech, while not recorded, seems to have been much more practical and nothing the delegates had not heard many times before.
  
  
• The lack of any background information into the causes of the Britain/Boston feud are completely ignored in this film. As I have stated before, I realize that every film has limitations to it, and certain events must be omitted for obvious reasons. With that said, however, I believe that it is essential for the audience to have a basic understanding of events like the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Tea Act, the creation of the Sons of Liberty, etc.
  
  

Though this film (like any other) is replete with historical inaccuracies, I still maintain my overall opinion that this film is deserving of praise. HBO should feel proud for having gone to such lengths to recreate this all-important era in our nation's history.

Review of John Adams: Episode 3

The new HBO miniseries John Adams is now in its second week. So far, the film has been the buzz of almost every single blog and website that is dedicated to the American Revolution. It is wonderful to finally have a film on the American Revolution that the public is responding to.

Last week I gave the first two episodes ("Join or Die" and "Independence") some positive reviews. This week, however, I felt that episode #3, "Don't Tread on Me," was actually quite dreadful. This episode deals primarily with the experiences John Adams faced while in France from 1777-1781. My main problem with this episode (and I think this will be my main problem with the series overall) is that it only skims the surface of history. There is little to no "meat." Again, I understand that this is primarily the result of the limits of film making. With that said, I still found myself longing for much more from last night's episode. There was absolutely NOTHING on the war itself (again, I realize that this is a film on John Adams and not the Continental Army), which is an extremely important part of the revolutionary story. I also felt that Franklin's role in France was greatly diminished in the film. I understand the need to portray the Adams/Franklin feud, but at the same time is seemed like Franklin was often portrayed as nothing more than a lazy sex maniac, which diminishes his all-important role as America's finest diplomat.

The French were also portrayed in a somewhat negative light. Instead of depicting the French nobility as child-like and oblivious, I wish that the film would have shown the French as they were in the 18th century: as THE center of culture, sophistication and education.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that next week's episode will be more on the lines of episode #2, which I feel is the best so far.

Thoughts on "John Adams," Round 1

After literally months of intense anticipation, the day of deliverance has finally arrived! HBO's new blockbuster miniseries "John Adams" aired for the first time last night, giving its audience a double feature of sorts, as they aired the first two parts of this seven-part miniseries.

So what did you all think? Did you find these initial two parts entertaining? Were they historically accurate in your opinion? What did you like/dislike about it?

As for myself, I realize that there were several small specifics that were not as accurate as they could have been. It is virtually impossible to get all of the small details completely accurate in any portrayal of the past, so I will not dwell on these. Besides, I am sure that many a historian of the American Revolution will be sure to point out every single one of these historical "infractions." Instead, I will focus on some generalities (both good and bad) that I observed from last night's show.

The Good Stuff:
1.) HBO did (in my opinion) an excellent job of recreating the 18th century colonial world. As one can imagine, colonial America in the 18th century was a difficult place in which to live. After all, colonial America was essentially on the fringe of established civilization. This show did a wonderful job of bringing to light those difficulties that made life hard for many colonists. The scene where Abigail Adams decides to inoculate her family is an excellent portrayal of how hard these times could be.

2.) This miniseries has also done an excellent job of portraying the American Revolution as an intense, confusing, and scary time for its participants. In today's America, the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution are often romanticized to death, which prevents us from understanding the true nature of their accomplishments. This film, however, effectively demonstrates the fact that the American Revolution was anything but certain for its participants. The portrayal of fighting and arguing in the Continental Congress helps to capture this in the film.

3.) The John/Abigail relationship is captured with incredible accuracy. HBO should feel good about how they portrayed John and Abigail's marriage in these first two parts of the miniseries. It was very well done in my opinion.

Things to be Desired:
1.) I think that starting this miniseries in 1770 was a bad idea. It omits too much of the initial conflict between Boston and Britain. There is no mention of the French & Indian War, the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, etc. These are extremely important factors that shaped the Britain/Boston feud. I understand that the film has to omit some stuff (even if this miniseries were 1000 hours long it could never capture it all), but for an American audience that is sure to be unfamiliar with this time period, a brief introduction into these events would certainly have helped.

2.) These first two parts of the miniseries move very quickly through six years of extremely important history (1770-1776). Again, I understand the need for this, but I feel that the audience loses out on so much history. There is a great deal of important information that is breezed through, recieving nothing more than a brief recognition.

3.) The role of John Adams in the early years of the American Revolution is a little overplayed. Don't get me wrong here, John Adams was a very important figure at this time. The film, however, depicts him as the principle player in the revolution in many cases. I wish that this film would have portrayed the fact that Samuel Adams and John Hancock were the main movers and shakers during the initial years of the American Revolution. Again, I understand why the focus is on Adams. After all, the miniseries carries his name. I just wish that there was a little more of a focus on the contribution of the other characters.

Again, these are just some general factors that I noticed in last night's show. Overall, this film is excellent! I found myself enthralled with the storyline from beginning to end. I cannot wait for next week! Now that we've declared independence, the series is sure to pick up steam!

Early Reviews for HBO's "John Adams"

The early reviews are in for HBO's highly anticipated new miniseries, "John Adams." Overall, historians, skeptics, and American movie buffs alike have given the series a resounding two thumbs up. Laura Linney has received the most praise for her portrayal of Abigail Adams. David Morse has also received very high marks for his role as George Washington. Tom Wilkinson, who plays Benjamin Franklin, has received the most criticism. Most of the negative critique centers on the fact that historians blame this film for portraying Franklin as a sober and angry man. The truth, however, is that Franklin was more coy and happy-go-lucky in his later life. The treatment of Franklin in this light has been attributed to McCullough's portrayal of Franklin in his book. After all, Franklin and Adams thought very little of each other.

Though the majority of the official reviews are still to come, the few individuals that have seen the film have a great deal to say. T.V. Guide Editor Matt Roush had this to say about HBO's portrayal of John & Abigail:

"Befitting such an enduring love story, Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney are splendid as America's second First Couple. At home, when John sheds his wig and attitude, they're equals: "You do not need to quote great men to show you are one," Abigail chides him, all the while acknowledging her husband's indisputable greatness."

The Boston 1775 Blog also lists some excellent critiques from Jill Lepore of The New Yorker and Ira Stoll of the New York Sun (To read Lepore's critique click here. For Stoll's review click here).

Ladies and Gentlemen, get your popcorn ready and prepare to strap in! This weekend we begin the journey!

Yet ANOTHER Trailer for "John Adams"

I may be beating a dead horse, but it is one that deserves to be beaten. Here is another preview for HBO's "John Adams." I just purchased HBO yesterday!!! March 16th at 8:00, everyone get ready!

New Preview for HBO's John Adams

Here is the newest preview for HBO's highly anticipated series "John Adams."

John Adams: The HBO Countdown

Here's another trailer for the upcoming HBO miniseries John Adams. I am not a subscriber to HBO, but I think I'm going to have to sign up for this!

New HBO Series! I Can't Wait!

I'm sure many of you have already heard that HBO has finished production on their newest series entitled, "John Adams." The series is produced by Tom Hanks and is based on David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize winning book "John Adams." John Adams is played by Paul Giamatti, while Abigail Adams is played by Laura Linney. Click here to see the official website for this upcoming series.

Here is the official preview for HBO's "John Adams":