Oh Posterity!

[PLAYER57832]

All of that was from memory btw, but I did have to check some of the dates.

ah, but Jaun.. no one understands FREEDOM better than Phattscotty, don't ya know.. its all about guns and telling other people to live like he wants!!!

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan I fully accept that it was impossible for Adams to abolish slavery during his presidency,it was a totally different age.

I don't think it was that different, when we are speaking about racism endorsed by our government today. Institutional and integrated racism actually came into it's own after the Revolutionary War. So Racism spread further and faster after Adams' time. Which even sounds weird as I type it.... but! Many blacks came to America as indentured servants, and the Southern plantation practice of owning hundreds of thousands of people cropped up around the desire for cheap skilled labor that wouldn't leave after 4 years. That damned four year mark would be right around the time a worker would start to gain some value. But after the War America still happily (sometimes desperately) made trade agreements with black/Arabian nations. We even helped out in a little slave revolt in the Caribbean... A racist country hell-bent on social Darwinism or race subjugation would not help a group of black slaves fight for their freedom as well. I would venture to guess that if not for the Southern States, slavery might not have been a question for any of the Congresses.

My only point was,and is,that however enlightened he was for the times,he did not preserve the freedom of a significant number of Americans, because nobody could.

Well what you said was that he did nothing to preserve their freedom, and that's why I took exception. Because it's not even close to true and John Adams was awesome.

It's also true that disease and inter tribal war was a major killer of Native Americans,but surely you would concede a lot of this disease was introduced to the Americas by the invading Europeans,and was particularly virulent because the indigineous population had little or no resistance.Whether they intended to do this is irrelevant,it was certainly highly useful in decimating any resistance.

I was just saying that it was these accidental diseases that killed of the majority of these Native Americans, the pogrom of meticulous categorizing and genocide didn't start until the western migration. Had there been 1 million Native Americans instead of 600,000, then there would have been 1 million slaughtered. I don't doubt that. As a point however, as POTUS John Adams actually worked to improve peaceful relations between Americans and Native Americans. The Louisiana Purchase was made by our third president, Thomas Jefferson, and it was then that the rush West began in earnest. That purchase literally wouldn't have happened if our second president, Adams, hadn't built a Navy, but he had no hand in Genocide. In fact Adams shrwedly worked to shrink our standing American Army.

another clip I think you would enjoy. Franklin's response to Adams after he told France to gfy.

Basically Franklin's philosophy of ambassadorship is "never ask for anything and be gracious even as when nothing is offered." Adams had a different approach, because he believed in the reason he was sent there. To get help. So he rustled jimmies and he did something Franklin would never do - he actually asked for more assistance.
It was because of this that Franklin actually worked secretly to get rid of Adams, possibly with support from the Comte de Vergennes. And of course the Comte de Vergennes wanted Adams gone too, because he found Franklin to be delightfully controllable. Another thing Franklin haplessly did to help the French and English; he unwittingly surrounded himself with their spys. And that made him even easier to control. But Franklin wrote his secret letters to Congress asking fro Adams' removal, and the Comte set political traps. In the end, it worked out better for America when they finally forced Adams out of France. Acting entirely on his own, he traveled to the Netherlands and there he succeeded in getting the type of support we really needed - money.
When Adams angrily ignored Congress' orders about who could approve the peace treaty, that was one blessedly rare time when Franklin supported Adams. The Comte de Vergennes was privately very pleased by Adams decision, but he still tried hard to stop him. The Comte was a French Monarchist who did such things for his king.

I love John Adams! still working on his autobiography and looking forward to the one DoomYoshi recco'd. JB how or why is it you happen to know so much about all this?

I am actually just as surprised as you are. I didn't know that I knew this much either.

Once, in England, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams decided to take a long tour of English country gardens together. It was a long trip that lasted for a few days, and was the only long period of time that they spent together. While on this tour, they visited a couple of battle sites from the English Civil War. At the final site, where the Parliamentarians won their victory against the King's men, Adam's stopped some local Englishmen to ask them some questions about the battle field. But when Adams asked these men they didn't know anything about the battle!
Adams was deeply moved (as you would expect)... Adams chastised them: 'Do Englishmen so soon forget the grounds on which liberty was fought for!? Run and tell your children that this is holy ground! All of England should pilgrimage here!'
That's an approximate quote, but my point is this: America has sacred grounds, but far above that, we have sacred ideals. And like Adams, I will remember them. We were born into them, we accept them, and we ascend. I think that's why I remember so much about this time period and them men who defined it. Because they were that important that they must never be forgotten. They did some amazing sh*t and it was awesome.

[chang50]

My only point was,and is,that however enlightened he was for the times,he did not preserve the freedom of a significant number of Americans, because nobody could.

Well what you said was that he did nothing to preserve their freedom, and that's why I took exception. Because it's not even close to true and John Adams was awesome.

I was talking about slaves as a group not individual slaves,perhaps I should have made this clearer.I still think it's definitionally impossible to preserve the freedom of a slave, as long as they remain a slave,so a significant number of Americans were excluded from his fine words..



Once, in England, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams decided to take a long tour of English country gardens together. It was a long trip that lasted for a few days, and was the only long period of time that they spent together. While on this tour, they visited a couple of battle sites from the English Civil War. At the final site, where the Parliamentarians won their victory against the King's men, Adam's stopped some local Englishmen to ask them some questions about the battle field. But when Adams asked these men they didn't know anything about the battle!
Adams was deeply moved (as you would expect)... Adams chastised them: 'Do Englishmen so soon forget the grounds on which liberty was fought for!? Run and tell your children that this is holy ground! All of England should pilgrimage here!'
That's an approximate quote, but my point is this: America has sacred grounds, but far above that, we have sacred ideals. And like Adams, I will remember them. We were born into them, we accept them, and we ascend. I think that's why I remember so much about this time period and them men who defined it. Because they were that important that they must never be forgotten. They did some amazing sh*t and it was awesome.[/quote]

At the risk of over-generalising perhaps you have hit on an important difference between Americans and Europeans,maybe,at least from my perspective you would be better to accept less and question more your 'sacred ideals',in fact this devotion sounds almost religious.Just an opinion...

[Phatscotty]

Juan I fully accept that it was impossible for Adams to abolish slavery during his presidency,it was a totally different age.

I don't think it was that different, when we are speaking about racism endorsed by our government today. Institutional and integrated racism actually came into it's own after the Revolutionary War. So Racism spread further and faster after Adams' time. Which even sounds weird as I type it.... but! Many blacks came to America as indentured servants, and the Southern plantation practice of owning hundreds of thousands of people cropped up around the desire for cheap skilled labor that wouldn't leave after 4 years. That damned four year mark would be right around the time a worker would start to gain some value. But after the War America still happily (sometimes desperately) made trade agreements with black/Arabian nations. We even helped out in a little slave revolt in the Caribbean... A racist country hell-bent on social Darwinism or race subjugation would not help a group of black slaves fight for their freedom as well. I would venture to guess that if not for the Southern States, slavery might not have been a question for any of the Congresses.

Interesting. I would want to add that there was also another, just as much real and important perspective.

To the English, to King George, there were 26 colonies, not 13. The 26 colonies extended all the way down to Venezuelan waters, and the Queen of England's face is still on their money to this day.

In the Northern 13, slavery was in many cases abolished in their state Constitutions, during the times of the Articles of Confederation, and I think Massachusetts even before that. That is to say before the Constitution, but definitely post-Declaration.

Anyways, the Southern 13 colonies (Carribean all the way to Antigua) slavery was institutionalized under the direct authority of King George and England (even as many want to credit England for abolishing slavery the soonest, or something). That resulted in trade wars similar to the tensions today between the USA and China, but over the age-old problem of how to compete against slave labor. Sadly, still to this day, the answer seems to be, as it was then, to lower the standards, pay, of the competitors. The only way to compete in tobacco and cotton and rum was to run a slave plantation, and given that slavery had already existed for generations and even centuries in some cases on French, English, and Spanish plantations on their colonies in the 1500's and 1600's, so that was the world pre-Americans were born into, and I don't care what is happening on the planet, whatever is going on when you are born and raised as a child, that is seen as "normal" because there is no way to know otherwise....

That's why I have so much respect for the road the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution paved. And why I also take issue with Chang stating "he did nothing for freedom...." I would love to just be able to say "dude, you don't have any idea" and call some names, but I never fault anyone when there is room to learn and help learn on all sides

[chang50]

Juan I fully accept that it was impossible for Adams to abolish slavery during his presidency,it was a totally different age.

I don't think it was that different, when we are speaking about racism endorsed by our government today. Institutional and integrated racism actually came into it's own after the Revolutionary War. So Racism spread further and faster after Adams' time. Which even sounds weird as I type it.... but! Many blacks came to America as indentured servants, and the Southern plantation practice of owning hundreds of thousands of people cropped up around the desire for cheap skilled labor that wouldn't leave after 4 years. That damned four year mark would be right around the time a worker would start to gain some value. But after the War America still happily (sometimes desperately) made trade agreements with black/Arabian nations. We even helped out in a little slave revolt in the Caribbean... A racist country hell-bent on social Darwinism or race subjugation would not help a group of black slaves fight for their freedom as well. I would venture to guess that if not for the Southern States, slavery might not have been a question for any of the Congresses.

Interesting. I would want to add that there was also another, just as much real and important perspective.

To the English, to King George, there were 26 colonies, not 13. The 26 colonies extended all the way down to Venezuelan waters, and the Queen of England's face is still on their money to this day.

In the Northern 13, slavery was in many cases abolished in their state Constitutions, during the times of the Articles of Confederation, and I think Massachusetts even before that. That is to say before the Constitution, but definitely post-Declaration.

Anyways, the Southern 13 colonies (Carribean all the way to Antigua) slavery was institutionalized under the direct authority of King George and England (even as many want to credit England for abolishing slavery the soonest, or something). That resulted in trade wars similar to the tensions today between the USA and China, but over the age-old problem of how to compete against slave labor. Sadly, still to this day, the answer seems to be, as it was then, to lower the standards, pay, of the competitors. The only way to compete in tobacco and cotton and rum was to run a slave plantation, and given that slavery had already existed for generations and even centuries in some cases on French, English, and Spanish plantations on their colonies in the 1500's and 1600's, so that was the world pre-Americans were born into, and I don't care what is happening on the planet, whatever is going on when you are born and raised as a child, that is seen as "normal" because there is no way to know otherwise....

That's why I have so much respect for the road the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution paved. And why I also take issue with Chang stating "he did nothing for freedom...." I would love to just be able to say "dude, you don't have any idea" and call some names, but I never fault anyone when there is room to learn and help learn on all sides

But Chang never said that,go back and check my first post and if you can find those words I will apologise for my error.Now will you please explain to me what he did to preserve the freedom of the slaves in the US that he was unable to free personally and who remained slaves?Try as I might I just can't see how anyone can preserve the freedom of a slave who remains a slave.Thus I think it is fair to say Adams did not preserve the freedom of a significant number of Americans,which was my point all along.Can you refute this without resorting to strawmen arguments?

[Juan_Bottom]

At the risk of over-generalising perhaps you have hit on an important difference between Americans and Europeans,maybe,at least from my perspective you would be better to accept less and question more your 'sacred ideals',in fact this devotion sounds almost religious.Just an opinion...

Which sacred ideals should I question? Freedom of Religion? Freedom of Speech? Of Movement? Surely even Europeans have sacred ideals, for every ideal that Adams espoused as American, came, at some point in history, from Europe. Even the Right to Bear Arms came from mother England, though she had banned the practice for some by then. That's the most controversial "right," well at least today it is, and I'll grant anyone that. And I've been very outspoken against it. But in Adam's time the only thing controversial about it was when the King took that right away from his subjects. Other ideals, like our Freedom of Speech, were only questioned by Europeans... which is sad because that high ideal came from old Greece.
My point is only that our sacred ideals were once your sacred ideals.

The only way to compete in tobacco and cotton and rum was to run a slave plantation, and given that slavery had already existed for generations and even centuries in some cases on French, English, and Spanish plantations on their colonies in the 1500's and 1600's, so that was the world pre-Americans were born into, and I don't care what is happening on the planet, whatever is going on when you are born and raised as a child, that is seen as "normal" because there is no way to know otherwise....

This is how Jefferson explained it in his Notes on the State of Virginia. He said that the child of the slave and the child of the master will grow up watching their fathers, and they will just follow their father's examples until you have the next slave and the next master.

Now will you please explain to me what he did to preserve the freedom of the slaves in the US that he was unable to free personally and who remained slaves?

You're pulling so far away from the argument when you say that he did nothing for the people he could do nothing for. What's the point of even saying that? I might as well say that you do nothing to help the Vietnamese Sex Slaves that exist all over southeast Asia. And would it be fair to accuse you of not helping them?
Adams did do everything that could be expected of a man to free the slaves in his own state. In the 1700s the states still considered themselves independent from each other. One of the few times that Thomas Jefferson ever spoke in Congress (as a Congressmen he only spoke twice, I think) was to argue that Virginia state's lawful boundary extended so far out into the Atlantic (I don't remember how far exactly, and it's not important), and that other state's shouldn't be allowed to fish out there without permission. The argument didn't go anywhere in Congress, and the states eventually did get pulled together by the Federal Government. But it wasn't until well after the Revolutionary war, and it happened in baby steps, beginning with the Federal government's assumption of each state's individual war debts. But I bring up Jefferson's argument to illustrate just how independent our United States really were.
After serving as a Massachusetts Congressman, Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution that declared all men were born free and equal. He was also a member of the Congressional Committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence that also declared all men were created equal. When you compare the phrasing of the two Constitutions you can see that Adam's wording was much stronger, and the reasoning for that is obvious. But then Adams moved to France as an Ambassador, and upon his return to America he was voted into office as the Vice President. He served two terms as the VP then one term as the President. There was never any part of his career where he was a dictator or had the authority to end slavery, even in his own state. But he did work with others to end slavery in Massachusetts.
Adams never once owned a slave, though he could easily afford them AND he was a lifelong farmer --- After the election of Thomas Jefferson as president, Adams said that for the rest of his life he only wanted to be known as "farmer Adams." And he meant it, because he only rarely left his farm after that. And furthermore he did personally free the slaves that were given to him. So it's not fair to blame him for not personally ending slavery in another country, which is how Georgia would have been seen in 1776, when he's ending slavery in his own country of Massachusetts. Abigail and John Adams both separately wrote about their one visit to Virginia as if it were another country. You just picked on the one founding father who did do something with the goal in mind of ending slavery for everybody.
Well, ok that's not true because others did too, but Adams played the biggest role.

[chang50]

At the risk of over-generalising perhaps you have hit on an important difference between Americans and Europeans,maybe,at least from my perspective you would be better to accept less and question more your 'sacred ideals',in fact this devotion sounds almost religious.Just an opinion...

Which sacred ideals should I question? Freedom of Religion? Freedom of Speech? Of Movement? Surely even Europeans have sacred ideals, for every ideal that Adams espoused as American, came, at some point in history, from Europe. Even the Right to Bear Arms came from mother England, though she had banned the practice for some by then. That's the most controversial "right," well at least today it is, and I'll grant anyone that. And I've been very outspoken against it. But in Adam's time the only thing controversial about it was when the King took that right away from his subjects. Other ideals, like our Freedom of Speech, were only questioned by Europeans... which is sad because that high ideal came from old Greece.
My point is only that our sacred ideals were once your sacred ideals.

And my only point is that no ideals should be so sacred that they go totally unquestioned,nothing more,I'm not suggesting they should neccessarily be abandoned..

Now will you please explain to me what he did to preserve the freedom of the slaves in the US that he was unable to free personally and who remained slaves?

You're pulling so far away from the argument when you say that he did nothing for the people he could do nothing for. What's the point of even saying that? I might as well say that you do nothing to help the Vietnamese Sex Slaves that exist all over southeast Asia. And would it be fair to accuse you of not helping them?
Adams did do everything that could be expected of a man to free the slaves in his own state. In the 1700s the states still considered themselves independent from each other. One of the few times that Thomas Jefferson ever spoke in Congress (as a Congressmen he only spoke twice, I think) was to argue that Virginia state's lawful boundary extended so far out into the Atlantic (I don't remember how far exactly, and it's not important), and that other state's shouldn't be allowed to fish out there without permission. The argument didn't go anywhere in Congress, and the states eventually did get pulled together by the Federal Government. But it wasn't until well after the Revolutionary war, and it happened in baby steps, beginning with the Federal government's assumption of each state's individual war debts. But I bring up Jefferson's argument to illustrate just how independent our United States really were.
After serving as a Massachusetts Congressman, Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution that declared all men were born free and equal. He was also a member of the Congressional Committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence that also declared all men were created equal. When you compare the phrasing of the two Constitutions you can see that Adam's wording was much stronger, and the reasoning for that is obvious. But then Adams moved to France as an Ambassador, and upon his return to America he was voted into office as the Vice President. He served two terms as the VP then one term as the President. There was never any part of his career where he was a dictator or had the authority to end slavery, even in his own state. But he did work with others to end slavery in Massachusetts.
Adams never once owned a slave, though he could easily afford them AND he was a lifelong farmer --- After the election of Thomas Jefferson as president, Adams said that for the rest of his life he only wanted to be known as "farmer Adams." And he meant it, because he only rarely left his farm after that. And furthermore he did personally free the slaves that were given to him. So it's not fair to blame him for not personally ending slavery in another country, which is how Georgia would have been seen in 1776, when he's ending slavery in his own country of Massachusetts. Abigail and John Adams both separately wrote about their one visit to Virginia as if it were another country. You just picked on the one founding father who did do something with the goal in mind of ending slavery for everybody.
Well, ok that's not true because others did too, but Adams played the biggest role.

So which argument am I pulling away from,not one I advanced for sure? It's obvious when Adams,who I admire as well btw,was talking about preserving freedom he was excluding some Americans,because through NO FAILURE OF HIS,lots of Americans had no freedom in his lifetime,being slaves.Seems a simple and innocuous point to make.Not once have I remotely blamed him or said he did nothing to help slaves,if you had read what I said carefully,you would not be raising strawmen about Vietnamese sex-slaves.Seems like your admiration of the man has clouded your judgement somewhat..

[Juan_Bottom]

Another golden age that only exists in fertile imaginations,Adams did nothing to preserve the freedom of millions of slaves and native Americans..

So which argument am I pulling away from,not one I advanced for sure? It's obvious when Adams,who I admire as well btw,was talking about preserving freedom he was excluding some Americans,because through NO FAILURE OF HIS,lots of Americans had no freedom in his lifetime,being slaves.Seems a simple and innocuous point to make.Not once have I remotely blamed him or said he did nothing to help slaves,if you had read what I said carefully,you would not be raising strawmen about Vietnamese sex-slaves.Seems like your admiration of the man has clouded your judgement somewhat..

Then you're just being dumb. Adams penned the very words that were used legally to end slavery in Massachusetts, and he was married to an abolitionist. He responded to several abolitionists letters during his presidency and he stated that he wanted to see the gradual end of slavery in America. Why gradual? Because he wanted a peaceful end. He never made a public statement about slavery before his election, no, and he never would have been elected president if he had. But he did write about it, and he did support the cause of freedom for everyone. Numerous founding fathers did join anti-slavery abolitionist groups, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay are two of the better known, but because of this they got no support from Southerners.
I re-iterate that someone from the Carolina's or Georgia would see themselves as a Carolinian, or Georgian before they saw themselves as an American. These were not the same united country. My straw-man argument was your argument.

[NoSurvivors]

I never take the time to read most of these threads, because the posts are so dang long, but hey, I am glad you guys seem to be havin fun in the politics forum

[chang50]

Another golden age that only exists in fertile imaginations,Adams did nothing to preserve the freedom of millions of slaves and native Americans..

So which argument am I pulling away from,not one I advanced for sure? It's obvious when Adams,who I admire as well btw,was talking about preserving freedom he was excluding some Americans,because through NO FAILURE OF HIS,lots of Americans had no freedom in his lifetime,being slaves.Seems a simple and innocuous point to make.Not once have I remotely blamed him or said he did nothing to help slaves,if you had read what I said carefully,you would not be raising strawmen about Vietnamese sex-slaves.Seems like your admiration of the man has clouded your judgement somewhat..

Then you're just being dumb. Adams penned the very words that were used legally to end slavery in Massachusetts, and he was married to an abolitionist. He responded to several abolitionists letters during his presidency and he stated that he wanted to see the gradual end of slavery in America. Why gradual? Because he wanted a peaceful end. He never made a public statement about slavery before his election, no, and he never would have been elected president if he had. But he did write about it, and he did support the cause of freedom for everyone. Numerous founding fathers did join anti-slavery abolitionist groups, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay are two of the better known, but because of this they got no support from Southerners.
I re-iterate that someone from the Carolina's or Georgia would see themselves as a Carolinian, or Georgian before they saw themselves as an American. These were not the same united country. My straw-man argument was your argument.

Ok I'll give you the last word if you want it.My parting shot is only to doubtless commit heresy for many of your countrymen and humbly suggest the USA's blind,dogmatic reverence for its founding fathers/constitution/version of freedom,does not always serve the country well in the nuanced,modern world.Call me dumb if you please but that is my opinion..

[Phatscotty]

Changer, it seems like you are of the opinion that our founders were all just a bunch of racist old slave owning crackers who just wanted to get out of paying taxes, and you didn't really know much about John Adams, except that he was one of our founding fathers, which to you means he was a racist slave owner "who did nothing to preserve freedom..."

Excuse Mr Adams if he must sacrifice and risk his and his families lives in order to help make Freedom and Liberty possible in the first place. I think you take a lot of shit for granted

[Juan_Bottom]

"Rejoice Evermore!"

I can't second what Phatscotty just said strongly enough. Just because Adams was a founding father that doesn't make him a racist or anything like that. Many of the founding father's were full-fledged abolitionists. Abigail Adams was a full-fledged abolitionist. If John Adams did not make a public statement about the abolition of slavery, it was only to preserve the Union through till the end of the Revolutionary War. And he said that himself. But during the War he did take action against every form of slavery, and that evidences his beliefs much more than anything he could have ever said against slavery.

Excuse Mr Adams if he must sacrifice and risk his and his families lives in order to help make Freedom and Liberty possible in the first place. I think you take a lot of shit for granted

Dude voluntarily sailed to France through an English blockade during "perfect storm season" with his son, John Quincy. And he did this knowing that he was on the list of traitors to hang, if he were caught. Once they outran their first English Frigate John Adams wrote in his diary of his regret in bringing his son on such a dangerous trip... Hence John Adams himself spent time above deck armed with a musket whenever they ran into trouble.... and I do remember that their ship, Boston, did actually attack and defeat an armed English merchant. Though they spent a lot more time running than fighting. And the suicidal-sounding trip on the Boston was the better choice, because Adams expected the Revolutionary War to last a decade on American soil. Being so outspoken, and important, he had to expect the English would come for his family. Adams is a motherf*cking hero to everyman. His words have been thrown up into the face of every tyrant since the American Revolution. His actions are held in the highest esteem of any of our founders, with perhaps, the honorable exception of George Washington.
I can't fully appreciate John Adam's willingly walking into the sh*tstorm that he did, only for the love of his native soil. I like to fantasize, like everyone, that I would be that bold and brave, but when it comes down to it, I just don't know. He put more than his own life at risk. He put his family in danger as well, and it did weight on his shoulders. His letters home from his time in France are full of warnings to his wife and advice on what to take with her if she needed to flee. It's awesome to know that my country can produce such brave men. But if Adams were Greek, or Russian, or Chinese, I would still defend his honor just as staunchly. He's not above criticism for everything he's done, but he's far above criticism for this.

[Phatscotty]

This video is a tribute to all of the happy moments in John Adams's life. Despite all of the hardships and haranguing he endured, John thought the world overall was a "merry world, notwithstanding." I think he was right.

[HapSmo19]

Call me dumb if you please

OK.
U R DUMB.

[BigBallinStalin]