Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (2018 Kennedy Library Forum)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- In commemoration of Presidents’ Day, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood discusses his new book, Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Harvard professor of history Annette Gordon-Reed moderates.
Excellent video thanks.
Personally I find John Adams more interesting than Jefferson but Jefferson was fascinating too, though I think nature and nurture can come together sometimes. It isn’t that simple the way Jefferson and Adams made it out to be.
Very captivating! I learned a lot!
Very interesting lectures, great insight on the two
This is excellent 🙌🏼
Enjoying this interview very much. Mr. Wood knows his subject very well. His book is very good. Learned a lot from it. Worth reading.
Może chce być moim. Tata. Bo ją już nie mam taty. A pan. Jest. Taki bajkowy ok.🌴🍒
I know of Woods' work. Watch for the exaggerations...in the vernacular; B.S, that you did not catch here.
I am going back into John Ferling, also Andrew Burstein & Nancy Isenberg on well researched Jefferson/Hamilton and Jefferson/Madison. Last I read of these writers were good corroboration and did hard work on them.
I am not picking on Wood, he just wanders off and for history lovers they should be knowing more than an autodidact or half schooled avid reader since 7-8 years old.
Just finished this book today. Really enjoyed it. Learned a lot from it. Good interview with the author of this book.
C n
Cnn
C non
David McCullough saw Adams differently, not knowing who is right or wrong on that topic. The HBO Series John Adams had some really good parts to it that made you think about the time period, like how long it took to go to France for example back then on a ship.
Great study..of the Time..period/..characters.
Ty..both! 📚👏👏👏..😍🌵
All of this history and I love uncovering the humanity behind the myth because I think it's crucial in American government to understand or American history to understand our history warts and all it is crucial to understand the grip of slave holding the fact that the civil war was often referred to as the last battle of the American revolution because it was dealing with the unfinished business of forming a country it's absolutely crucial to understand the differences between men like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and also not to lionize them they were wonderful thinking humans but they were not God's
Fascinating ! Bizarre comment from Audience Member at 1;28;28 though ? Lord Nelson was born in Nevis ? Nelson was born in Burnham Thorpe , Norfolk , England on 29th September 1758. Albeit he did meet and marry his first wife Fanny Nisbet in Nevis in 1787. Excellent Though.
I think his interpretation of Adams' stance on nature vs. nurture is too simplistic because he's trying to make an easy comparison between Jefferson and Adams. Adams was a strong advocate of education as necessary for a strong and moral society. He DID believe in the power of education. He seems less than unbiased in his approach to these men...very pro-Jefferson.
Very true. If I'm not mistaken, Adams wrote a provision into the Massachusetts Constitution to guarantee education to its state's residents.
These (historians?) I read and loved reading of Early American times on through and up to the last Founding fathers and J. Quincey Adams I put in there, because at his incredible young age, 20 or above(?) he was sent off by President Washington, surely later he & Jefferson were friends and Quincey served under the early presidents, becoming the 6th president himself and so much time/offices he held, ending up after his presidential bid against sadly, Andrew Jackson in 1832, Q. is in the U.S. House until he dies. His life and journals I bury myself in.
After reading hundreds of books on Jefferson and Adams, I never ever have found that Jefferson thought we were an exceptional nation. ( That can be found, probably "President Cheney" & "W" his sidekick said it. We have been exceptionally bad, warmongering esp. since T. Roosevelt...and Adams was a cranky man indeed and judgmental, but though religious, we have no public admission that the first 6 leaders were Christians. Quincey's volumes, diaries, et are steeped in mentions of reading, pondering the Bible but a Universalist perhaps as some were...recall this is Enlightenment days yet, ALL is Reason? Adams mentions in the beautiful "Letters of Adams/Jefferson," that he would go and hear the evangelist George Whitfield-so did Franklin, the great preacher' friend who also published sermons/messages that G. W. paid him for. Ben Franklin's newspaper in Philadelphia was very successful. Jefferson was NOT hating religion. For goodness' sake, on his tombstone it is inscribed (I believe) about his declaration concerning religion and he bought every child when born to him & his wife a Bible, then his grandchildren got a copy of it when born-of Jefferson's amazing daughter Martha.
Jefferson was a Deist, believing in a Providence or Creator that set things in motion, he wrote and the U.S. Senators, newly elected get a copy/version of the Gospels that Jefferson painstakingly wrote and is on Amazon today. I think he did, surely may have truly trusted in Christ before dying, for he admired Jesus but thought the miracles and such were inaccurate. He did say (quote not in front of me this second) but "Jesus is the most important one that ever lived, & his teachings, et."
Mr. Wood, is it TV or why the misconceptions?
Sally hemings
Effie Peshka Stupid...
No it is Annette Gordon-Reed.
They Both Died on the 50th Anniversary of the Independence for America .
P.S. Benjamin Rush, Dr, read Jefferson's Bible...that's the title if you send for one, small beautiful hardcover of the New Testament Gospels with parts left out that T. J. did not believe, Jesus' resurrection is one and good friend Dr. Rush, a true Christian Calvinist & Reformed faith upbraided his friend for not putting in that doctrinal fact that the whole Bible tells us happened, with evidence of it.
At.44:52 he makes a mistake interpreting the phrase “….all men are created equal…” in terms of the nature vs nurture distinction. The correct interpretation is that no matter how great is whatever you were born with, and no matter how poor is whatever I have been born with, we are both born, we have both been created and thrown into this world and therefore, just by the fact that we have been made to exist, we are equal in possesing certain unalienable rights, and the obligation of government to ensure those rights. The reason is not essential, it has nothing to do with our natures. Rather it is existential. We have rights just by the fact that we are, not by who we are. This is in virtue of the fact that we have been created. I was created this way, you that way, the other another way but we have all been created as we are, and therefore must be treated equally by government.
There is a limit in colonial thinking. Steers are slaughter-able, for example, but there is a vestige and we profess that we don’t have a right to be vicariously cruel to animals. Especially mammals. If we live to meet other intelligent beings, or if we develop them, Jefferson’s ideas will have to be re-examined as Asimov wrote of in I Robot. Once a being has an “I” or, perhaps more restrictively, once he can love to be, and feel the difference between pleasure and pain, then some level of protection is due if not outright equality.
Is he saying Jefferson is a neo-con?
A precursor to the Wilsonian Democrats who saw America as having a special role in liberating the world many of whom I think did become the Neo-Cons after the emergence of the modern Left. I think you can argue that the reason the conservative movement is such a divided mess is that they’ve kept absorbing various iterations of the Democrats that they’ve shed off while radicalizing over time.
In a way, Jefferson was the OG-Con. He was fearful of any kind of strong central government, believing that the states should be left to do as much of their own thing as possible. This was largely due, imo, to a contempt Jefferson had for monarchs and anyone who held similar power. The first thing he did once held became President was downsize the Federal Government as much as he could. We've lived with a form of that "small government conservativism" ever since.
I believe the Adams had a legitimate reason to resent Jefferson's political sabotage of President Adams' administration and subtle approval of unfair attacks upon Adams character. Abigail fiercely defended her husband with good reason. Mr Wood fails to explain the good reason for her criticism and instead gives Jefferson a pat on the back.
The Federalists were never doomed. We became whilst than Republicans and I think we should go back to.calling ourselves federalists.
My 3 favorite presidents were Thomas Jefferson, John Q. Adams, John F. Kennedy.
What hard times JFK bore in his first 3 years of that first term had revolutionized his (& Bobby Kennedy's) lives. Had the president lived for two terms, our world would have been changed as nobody could realize, except a small number who has studied JFK and all he spoke privately as well as publicly. He was brilliant. I saw the IQ's of all our presidents. He and Jefferson had the highest IQ's...along with John Q. Adams, one of our best, most wise leaders.
John Adams did not own slaves and was against the practice of bondage. Jefferson....well ya'll know about that......
I stopped listening when he claimed Jefferson wasnt that interested in religion as though his bible studies never happened. I can look at them from home.
I am not a historian, but my Jefferson weighted reading leads me to think that while Jefferson did write the so-called Jefferson Bible and had a deep and abiding respect for Jesus Christ, whom he regarded as the greatest moralist who ever lived, he paid little attention to traditional, denominational, church-on-Sunday religious practice, which Adams found to be fundamental. Adams found that difference quite unsettling, It appears Jefferson did not.
Thomas Jefferson was the biggest backstabbing slave owning hypocrite in American history he deserves the fact that he is being thrown to the trash heap of History where he belongs!!!!
text
Adamas was fearfully of the government, and yet he chose big government. That makes no sense.
Democrat lol
He chose an energetic central government under the hope that it and the state governments could balance each other out whilst each managed to do their job. The idea of the Federal Government being a complete overbearing force that can do anything it wants doesn't emerge until the Progressivism of the early 20th Century.
@@johnweber4577 Good Point about progressivism. And by the way there are other examples of things that might seem like contradictions to us although they were quite reasonable to the people of their era. For example a few decades later, Andrew Jackson was very much a states rights man, but at the same time he was ready to go to war (leading the troops himself as president, now that's a concept) to stop South Carolina from seceding. States rights is one thing but Jackson drew the line at breaking up the Union. You can have that idea without wanting a huge federal government, like you hint at in your last sentence those are different things, or at least they were back then.
@mateuszmattias Yep! It almost feels like people two centuries ago were able to hold more nuanced political opinions than many today. Lol
When they are in control , they don’t mind big government. When not in control, of course advocate small government. Jefferson did the same .
I love this time of our history. I had to do a "thumbs down" on here. Maybe Gordon is forgetting or who knows what but that b.s. re Jefferson with no regard for Jesus and though T.J. never was in organized religion in churches...his friend Dr. Rush was taken to a Reformed church/Calvinistic, by his believing mother; Pastor Gilbert Tennant of the Tennant brothers and evangelist friends of George Whitefield. Persons spend their lives in great atmosphere and can, and do, find things we common, unprofessional often cannot and yet another, as Doug Brinkly (historian) and Michael Beschloss'(?) grandstand, tell nonsense and some love to just spout. Give me James Flexner's, "George Washington," (4 vol.) give me David Hackett Fischer's "Washington's Crossing," a book I had to read twice.
Why Hamilton was hated by Jefferson and Adam's then is the same reason why democrats secretly hate Hamilton now but flock to a play that goes through the places of his life but outright reverses the truth of his mind. Just as democrats try alway to claim Lincoln would be a Democrat today, so to they try to steal away hamiltons true importance by passing over the central greatness of his position in creating The Constitution. He even wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers which the Supreme Court uses to interpret the constitution since he knew base men would try to twist it. The Federalist Papers are an indisputable written guide as to how every article should be interpreted. He left nothing to chance. It's all spelled out so it need only be followed . The interpretation was done long ago. All that's now required is to protect it by preventing revolutionary filth from trying to diminish it. Jefferson was the first to try to diminish it. No Democrat since who truly understands the chaotic evil of democracy has spared a moment in their centuries long attempt to destroy the constitution so they can impose their own rule and not have too bother with anyone who disagrees.