Interpreted one way or another, that could describe all three of them

@@MrStrawberryfields4 I was thinking that myself. I couldnt figure out which one is the realist, optimist and the pessimest.

As a Pessimist. I understand.

@@karuneshsaroya352 Adam's is the pessimist, Franklin the realist, Jefferson the idealist

Ahh but who is who?

Yea. It’s also as if they mean what they say quite earnestly, yet there’s a twinkle behind the eyes suggesting “maybe you’re on to something also”

Hence the beauty of their friendship, they may disagree on occasion yet had great respect and friendships...

Best series of that era! Well done! A situation we may find ourselves in again if leftists keep it up.

Thomas Jefferson killed it!

@@charlesphillips430 shut up

gold

GOT em

Mr Baratheon really did change

Modern conservatives idolize this aspect of Jefferson, but then turn up their noses when he talks about separation of church and state, or the importance of amending the constitution every 20-or-so years to reflect the values of the day. 🤷‍♂️

@@ltdowney actually the ideology of separation of church and state you are referring to is Marxism not Jeffersonian. Now go study what Jefferson wrote. He felt strongly about the need for Christian morals in government.

Franklin should have the Flowes, Liquor, and beautiful ladies. No?

Well I think if we were looking at backdrops then the flowers and beautiful women should have been behind Franklin, I think it could also be interpreted that Jefferson has his back to those things and Franklin is looking right at them.

Not a historically accurate depiction of Jefferson, but artistically beautiful.

Misha Trubetskoy Love your observation.

I'd have taken it as less about an affinity for those things and more what they represent - Adams is championing the need for law for stability and the establishment of Civilization as we know it - represented by classical sculptures that have lasted the ages, Jefferson has more romantic ideals that look and feel great in the moment, but have dubious longevity - flowers, liquor and ladies. Franklin, at least in this scene, is the impartial neutrality.

And of Jefferson, as a matter of fact.

I think Franklins response was deeper “we’re all contradictions, Mr.Adams”.

That is Franklin's statement in general.

Some men are more manly than some men He was more contradictory than more contradictory men

The fact is , if we are true to ourselves we ebb and flow with changing circumstances and experience. I find many times I am in disagreement with my past self, and my future self will disagree with my present self.

Maybe. But i dont think that was the real Jefferson.

Debate is a wonderful exercise if it's treated as exactly that: an exercise

@@peterkeenan6382 Big if true.

Mr. A

I think Jefferson enjoyed having an intellectual equal, which would have been a very rare experience for him.

Only now...at the end...do they understand lol

"Oh, I'm afraid the minutemen will be quite armed and operational by the time your British friends arrive".

Have we not seen either in post-war America? Has those entrusted with our government not acted on their own selfish desires over the greater good of all?

@@bosskanova685 this comment is too good 💀💀

Who said that, was it Adams or Jefferson?

They will bend the knee or be destroyed.

My lord, the night is dark and full of Federalists.

Anh Triệu And the winter and the British are coming...

We are the Whigs on the walls.

"Come with me and take the government from that toothless hermaphrodite, John Adams."

Sam H - Correct me if I’m wrong but most of them are also slave owners.

@@xmuta Really? Rich men owning slaves at a time when it was legal and accepted for rich men to own slaves? Scandalous!

@@xmuta did you hear that black Americans owned slaves too?

@@xmuta Yeah. And MLK had some very backwards opinions about women. If you judge figures by the standards of today, then you will end up with nothing left to admire. Must condemn everyone and everything.

S L can u atleast try to contextualize it and realize that Jefferson hated slavery and most FF were against it

With this dialogue I am reminded that there was a time TV and film were aimed at adults with a cognitive function of at least "self aware". :(

​@cgavin1 As someone fascinated With history, especially Early America: I love this show

Jefferson spoke of the protections of man against the government. Adams spoke of the protections of the government against man. Both are vital. We would not have the republic we hav without either one.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Tommy Jeffs

The Revolution was fought by a bunch of Whigs against a ruling whig govt over who had the correct view of this question. As soon as the war was over, the winners promptly divided again along that same dividing line. How much is too much?

Adams was right. Too much faith in one's fellow man is how great disasters and crimes against the survival of humanity, as well as the autonomy of the individual, occur. Laws and their careful enforcement are necessary to ensure everyone doesn't murder each other, create the tragedy of the commons or produce the slavery of one over another. Some Day America might achieve such laws and enforcement.... but its been failing now for the 230 years of its existence under the Constitution....

@@josephteller9715 Obviously putting faith in government, which is run by fallible men (and women, don't think I'm being sexist here), is not the answer. The problem with the argument against having too much faith in your fellow man as being an argument for government to rule men, is that governments are run by those same men you are so dead set against putting your faith in. Not one in a million is worthy of being entrusted with the responsibility of governing others, and even less worthy are those that actively seek that power. (paraphrased from a quote by J.R.R. Tolkien

@@josephteller9715 decent people believe other people are decent and thus have faith in thekr fellow man, selfish people believe other people are selfish and thus have no faith in their fellow man. This is a really dependable way to find the real bastards in our midst. Bastards have to believe everyone else is a bastard like them, otherwise they have to face a very unpleasant truth. They are assholes and they are the people that need to change, their ego will never allow it.

you should see how Adams and Jefferson treated Hamilton.

Can you see Trump holding his own in a conversation about political principles? Boris, Angela Merkel and Macron, maybe. Although Boris would start on his Oxford Union (debating society) techniques and his Latin axioms and say nothing original. Trump? No chance. It takes all his focus to remember 5 words with pictures attached.

@@cpfishfan14 And each other as a matter of fact. Dude announced Jefferson is dead so that people won't bite for a dead guy.. lol

Our current leaders are encouraged to process matters in simple terms without much effort allocated to their thinking in depth. So not surprised that generations have failed their predecessors in understanding the complexity of human nature

@@anonUK Trump has shown a massive amount of adherence to founding era political/ governing principles. I think that we need to go back about a century to find people that well aligned with how America is meant to be governed. Progressivism has stomped all over Constitutionally limited government and disregarded the amendment process entirely when doing it. Human nature indeed moves towards a few seeking power over the many. That is why our founding generation assigned "Few and defined Powers" to the Federal government and added the Bill of Rights as an exclamation point and STILL Progressives eternally move against the right to keep and bear arms and the free exercise of religion..

Actors aside, Stannis has more in common with Adams than he does with Jefferson

Jefferson was too busy raping Sally hemings and selling and breaking up slave families for cash so he could buy more fine wine find food furniture art and scientific instruments to worry about anything else the man was a hypocrite!!!!

@@waltking9141 needless to say you never actually picked up any actual books on this matter written by an actual truthful historian.

@@samueladams1775 like I give a s*** what you think just to let you know loser I've been to Monticello four times the first time in 93 in the last time in 2016 in 1993 they did not say one word about slaves or Sally hemings then I read the hemings of Monticello an American controversy and then I read Master of the mountain Thomas Jefferson and his slaves and Thomas Jefferson the notes on the state of Virginia and I did my own investigation on internet so apparently your ignorant ass hasn't read a book I lost all respect for the man he's on his way to be thrown to the trash heap of history where he belongs but since you're so sensitive about him I'll give you some advice you don't want to go to Monticello because they don't whitewash the man no moreI they tell it like it is and it's not good deal with it!!,😀😀

@@waltking9141 lmao. Yeah ok slick. Just another uneducated idiot that talks like antifa morons, or a nation of Islam idiot. No historical documents to back up your bs slick. Just revisionist bs. Go to a library and educate yourself.

These disagreements lead to a bloody civil war.

@@Falcrist Over 70 years later.

Slavery of men lead to a bloody civil war. Period. Then on July 4th 1867 150 black citizens took part in forming the Republican Party. Shortly thereafter, Democrats created the KKK.

Political disagreement can be a lot of fun when you're comfortable and protected from the consequences of your own actions. Look to "the Frontier" for those.

Oh, 1 minute is too little, you would only hear the introductions in 1 minute.

@@johnadams13, exactly. You have hit the nail on the head, good sir. Quality conversation does not spring from shallow and brief slogans, a la the bumper sticker...but in prolonged discussion where the conversation members have established relationships which enable the discussion of controversial and even opposing ideas within a space of safety.

geniuses? more like aristocratic racist slave owners who's only clever idea was to steal everything they could.

@@borninvincible, yup, but your conceit is that you think anyone could do better without their own evil clouding the picture. I have yet to mood a good person.

@@borninvincible says the guy spitting ad hominem. they did no such thing you ignoramous

And like all beautiful friendships. Both Adams and Jefferson died on the same day, July 4th, 1826. On the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. How mysterious is life?

This is what a political conversation should look like. Not the zoo we see today.

It summarizes like 30 years of their political thought and their final years.

You can sort of see the beginnings of liberalism and conservatism in what Adams and Jefferson say, respectively.

Not particularly. Humanity has simply degenerated to such a low level, that conversation like this appears unduly sagacious to many in this century.

Basically, should we pass laws that affect people who aren't even born yet

Your so-called enduring respect was interrupted by two bitter presidential campaigns against each other. It's the kind of name-calling done by Trump nowadays.

​@@mad_max21 it's nice to see trump elevated to the same level as the founding fathers, the framers. As op stated, the two were very much opposed to each other in how they felt they should go about getting things done. Even if their goal was the same really. Both have good points, and bad.

The conducted themselves with dignity, able to engage in civil discussion, unlike the politicians of today. Of course the politicians of today lack their intellect and are strangers to dignity.

Killing Lincoln is another good history piece that Tom Hanks is in

Man Tom hanks is just killer at history media

Aw... No "The Pacific"?

"From the Earth to the Moon"!

Interesting: Four Hanks produced series are mentioned in this thread. I can agree that Tom Hanks has dome some great history series. "From the Earth to the Moon", "Band of Brothers", "The Pacific" and "John Adams"...I happen to own all four of these series on DVD. And I watch them a lot.

David McLemore A debate hall

we all have that one friend that just wants to chill tf out

you could see in ben's face "oh good grief why did i open my mouth"

I found that funny too.

Not really, but ok.

When their ideas were combined, it kept the US from collapsing for about 80 years...until it finally did because of the contradictions between those ideas and their material outcomes.

The synthesis of Adams' views about good governance, and Jeffersonian ideals on the rights of man, is basically what made James Madison the way he is and why he was the perfect man to rough-hew what would eventually become the Constitution

That was mostly Franklin's job. In rooms of strong personalities and opinions, it is Franklin who usually pops up reminding them that they are all on the same side and sort of sums up the sides. He's very good at understanding both sides and communicating his own. The scene continues on with him reminding them of what John Dickinson feared, that independence would result in us just tearing each other apart.

Ben is an "extreme moderate" hahaha

Had he been youhger when the nation achieved its independence, Ben Franklin might have made a good President.@@President.GeorgeWashington

Every school child in this (or any) country should have to take a class on the genius and contradictions and contradictory genius of Thomas Jefferson. Rather than building a cult figure denying his practice of slavery or sculpting a straw-man boogeyman by focusing solely on that, we should winnow through the conversion of the two, acknowledge human frailties so as to better appreciate the human genius.

@@roddaman7545 ... And to further dissuade the building of bogus "Oppressors" to justify radical actions such as tearing down of statues across the nation. Robert E. Lee comes to mind... The Confederacy had lost for more reasons than merely holding Slaves. It was also the conceit of those Democratic Party Elites who happened to be bankrolled by(possibly even actually happen to be) slaveholders at the time... Much more likely of course is the fortunes of war being against Stonewall Jackson at a particularly dire moment, and in some cases being in favor of U.S. Grant and Tecumseh Sherman.

@@roddaman7545 Indeed. To acknowledge and accept our inherent weaknesses and darker sides, rather than to suppress and deny them, opens the road on which we can conquer and control them. Which i think is different than suppressing them. THAT, in my humble opinion, is the key to becoming a better person. And if a whole peoples does that, it can only benefit society as a whole.

@@davecrupel2817 I agree and appreciate your perspective. There are two sides to that coin: one, recognizing the flawed humanity in historical idols and the other recognizing the same humanity in historical monsters. By doing both we better understand both the path to promise and the road to perdition. We all have the potential to mobilize en mass for great good or for great evil. Recognizing the fork in the road, seeing that a choice is being made, is the key to choosing the right path.

@@roddaman7545 Jefferson is by far the most infuriating founder precisely *_BECAUSE_* he knew what he ought to do and then didn't do it. He wrote a beautiful soliloquy in the Declaration expounding the virtue of freedom and equality... and then he allowed slavery to expand and even took a slave concubine.

They did really well with that I thought.

@@historygeekslive8243 Yeah, it's a great attention to detail.

This is actually historically incorrect. The American Accent is the traditional British accent, the British began their modern accent after the revolution happened.

@@beornyondur4594 No, you are wrong. The closest modern equivalent of the traditional British accent (as in that which existed during the early stages of the colonization of what is now America) would be found in the English West Country, in parts of East Anglia or in the Outer Banks of North Carolina as all of these remain rhotic accents, unlike both the modern "received pronunciation" accent in Britain and the general modern American accent.

While the above comments by some may be historically correct it is all wrong. Simply 2 English actors and 1 American actor not putting on big fake accents but speaking closer to their normal voices.

But how could one generation accurately predict the needs of the generations after it

Yeah but his prediction came true. The ideals of the consitution were compromised over time. I'd say this happened anywhere between the industrial era and now.

@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly That's why Thomas Jefferson criticized anyone who believed that the Constitution is rightful, he basically said "none can be more arrogant and ignorant than those who firmly believed that the Constitution is sacred and untouchable" which can be interpreted that he believed the Constitution need to be changed by every new generations according to what is necessary for them, because the Constitution itself isn't perfect.

@@vanlao6367 The constitution can be changed by amendments, but its purposefully made an a extremely difficult process because if the constitution was continually edited by each generation then there would be no point in a constitution at all. The constitution is a means of setting limits to avoid or delay the system from corrupting.

@@JP-rf8rr it's only extremely difficult to amend the constitution in our present climate. Every generation prior to current has successfully amended the constitution in a continual fashion without compromising the integrity or intent of the document

Because human nature does not change.

If men are not angels, then a belief in the justified position of power to use violence against innocent people is suicidal. It is precisely because there is evil in mankind that government must be abolished. The belief that some people should initiate force against others is insane on its face. Add to that the fact that the type of people who seek that power are the last people who should wield it, and you get all the horrors we endure in our pseudo-civilization.

@@sequorroxx In order to live in a fantasy "all men are angels" world with no government, then all men must be angels. If however, most men are angels but there are some who aren't...the men who aren't angels will likely seek to take advantage of the men who are angels. For this reason, we have government to sort this out and pursue necessary justice (violence if necessary). Anarchy only works if 100% of men are angels which of course is not the case.

Funny thing is, even angels fall.

Sounds like "On Constitutions" by Adams

In reality, he said these words to Madison about the Constitution. He argued it expires after a period of time and after the next generation takes over and that it must be ratified to be maintained as our government. He argued that the Constitution belongs to the living, not the dead, and that the living owe no debts to previous generations. Conservatives would scoff at such words today.

In other words "Okay, boomer..."

@@AlasdairGR He is also rather socialist; no one is ever 100% perfect in rule.

@@AlasdairGR if No laws and sense of organization can last longer than the lifespan of humans, how would *any* nation, or state, or city, or town, or even tribe, continue to live? Without living the way animals do? Maybe im just being a pretentious paranoid christian white man here, but I scoff at the idea of humans living like a wild herd of buffalo or horses. It's not in our nature to be content living that way. We are an evolving people. Or at least i like to think we are. And as much as i like Jefferson, i greatly disagree with his desires to erase any form of law or order that outlasts a generation. Adams described it *perfectly* here.

@Kyle Clark : Perhaps not in this case but often the words Socialism or Socialist is used against someone not liked or understood.

Above all else, Adams was about protecting and shrining the rule of law. s a lawyer he views law as that thing that frees man from the whims of tyranny. he wants to enshrine the law itself as the supreme guarantor of liberty. which is why he wants a Constitution. Jefferson does not want rule of law, he wants rule by conscience. He sees law as inherently the seeds of tyranny itself. A superme law will impose its will on those without the power to alter government, which is not acceptable to him as the whims of lawmakers change. Ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the establishment of a rule of law, Jefferson decides he'll accept a rule of law if freedom of conscience is preserved so that those who feel as he does have space to breathe. And thus we have a constitution with a Supremacy Clause, AND a Bill of Rights. Both of them carried important points that made our nation stable on the one hand and free on the other. Adams' court would ajudicate on Jeffersonian liberty. One imagines that when an American sues at court to defend their civil rights, the two old men in heaven exchange a wink and a bit of a shoulder bump. One preserved the ideals, the other the method.

@@hagamapama The Supremacy Clause and the Bill of Rights are not in conflict because they have to do with each other. The Bill of Rights, and by extension the 14th Amendment, codified the equal protection of the law and an individual's due process rights. Those are essential to the rule of law. I don't understand your 2nd paragraph. Jefferson was a bundle of contradictions, and his opinions changed during the course of his long life. But I have trouble with the statement did "not want the rule of law".Please expound your hypothesis.

@@michaelbayer5094 I didn't say they're in conflict. I simply siad they come from two ends of the spectrum and both are important. Like I said, they used the law as a method to secure our rights, satisfying Adams as a legalist and Jefferson as a libertarian. Adams and Jefferson both had important points and both played huge roles in why our nation looks like it does.

Sounds like any number of men of any time in history...flawed and brilliant. The founding fathers were not unique or made of stone, but men that rose to the level of their abilities and did the best that they could while living thru extraordinary times.

@@thomast8539 yep 👍 Pog

They were "the best men".

Jefferson cared about protecting man against the government. Adams cared about protecting the government against man. A society does not thrive unless both are achieved.

@ arguing over imperial hegemony vs tribal Marxism. They would be disgusted.

Except slavery, an issue they just kicked down the road for others to deal with.

Ealdy Well sadly ending slavery was just viewed differently back then. Kind of like abortion now

WorldFlex Oh no it will. Much longer than you or your heirs!

@WorldFlex Back to your porridge, Vladimir. Commies have been wishing for that for over 100 years.

That's ironic considering what their camps said about each other during their Presidential campaigns...

will Smith would disagree

If I were, I'd no doubt have been arguing with a girlfriend or picking up dog poop.

They had fantastic material to work from. David McCullough's "John Adams" is a masterpiece of non-fiction.

Jefferson would be appalled at the current notion of holding sacred a document they devised 250 years ago that he deemed fit only for one generation of Americans.

They wouldn't be at all surprised at how things turned out, honestly. Dejected and horrified at actually seeing it. But not surprised. "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and (word banned by ewtube) itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit (word banned by ewtube)..." -John Adams, 1814 "What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of the resistance?" -Thomas Jefferson, 1787

@@Guy-Mann Do I really have to point out the obvious? That we do Not have a democracy, we have a Republic (with some democratic elements). People like John Adams did not look to Athens as is supposed in the popular mind, they looked to Sparta and Rome, for their model.

@Steven Wiederholt Oh sorry bro, lemme hop in the time machine and go tell ol' Johnny A himself about the error you spotted in my direct quotation of him. Seriously though, what kind of point were you hoping to make there? I understand like anyone should that America is a republic, but like squares and rectangles, a republic (res publica: public thing/rule) is necessarily a democracy (demo kratos: people power/rule) and so can fall under it in the specific circumstances where Adams was talking about the nature of all government by the consent of large groups instead of by exclusive groups or single individuals. In case I needed to state the obvious for you. So rest easy knowing that I do, in fact, know the difference between republics and democracies. Something which obviously bothers you so much you seem to have developed some kind of a hair trigger social twitch over it. Now would you care to explain why you thought pointing that out would in any way effect the comment I made? I am genuinely curious to know what your reasoning was.

@@Guy-Mann You don't have to. Just Read What They (the frames) wrote.

what went wrong

@@eifionjones559 About as many things as went right.

They were elitists, all of them. Not just Hamilton. The first President with a strong popular base was Jackson, was he not?

@@neilpemberton5523 Washington was very popular, but Jackson was a walking billboard on the pros and cons of a populist President.

@@neilpemberton5523 What is wrong with them being elitist?

Yeah I know weird right?

Personally, I don't think there was one bad bit of casting in the entire series. Every performance was a great one.

And dialogue

He is saying far more than that my friend. He is denouncing any notion of a social contract what so ever.

Well said Sequorroxx. As Adams puts it, the cordoning off a space in which no power exists at all. Not arbitrary power from a living Constitution at the whims of a federal judiciary.

its amazing how forward thinking they were at the time, to for see the the problem with the debts that are being passed onto the next generation like today who would have thunk.

@@sequorroxx he was an anarchist by principal. Nothing wrong with some free market anarchy.(not sarcasm)

@@xoferwalken that's how he envisioned it, yes. I think he came up with this idea whilst in France. He calculated that every generation would have to revise the document every 19 years. Sounds ridiculous but it sums up Jefferson's optimism in humanity.

And plays both SUPERBLY!!!

The reality of politics will forever prevent this. Even Jefferson and Adams stooped to the lowest of political trickery during the Election of 1800. Jefferson had his allies publish articles calling Adams a blind, bald, toothless hermaphrodite, and Adams responded by having his allies publish articles reporting the untimely death of Thomas Jefferson.

Adams was a man who was ruled by his passions, and he had an unfortunate habit of bulldozing those with whom he disagreed.

I prefer to think of it as Jefferson was too principled to be pragmatic and John Adams was limited by his own pragmatism

Watch "Sons of Liberty".

@Kyle Clark A plethora of reasons. A weaker Executive branch and a Constitution that would be easier to amend at the whim of strong interest groups to their own liking.

@@leroyproud294 You seem to know this for certain but you don't. As it did not happen, there's is no telling for certain what the end result would have been. I do know that Jefferson was a strong supporter of the bill of rights, and if it had not been for him and the anti-federalists, we would not have a bill of rights. The federalists did not think it was necessary.

@@neowolf09 You know for certain? You're just surmising. The fact is that Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights including in the Constitution. It doesn't matter that Jefferson was in favor of them. When the Constitution was drafted and signed Jefferson was in France. In the late 18th century that means his means of communication was as if he were on some moon revolving around Jupiter. The US Constitution is one great achievement that this brilliant American Founding father cannot receive credit for

@@leroyproud294 I said the anti-federalists. Not thomas Jefferson by himself. Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-federalist. You lack reading comprehension. And yes this is fact. Read the Anti-federalist Papers.

@@neowolf09 I fucking read exactly what you stated. Your entire premise is irrelevant to what I originally posted. Jefferson wasn't around. The Anti Federalists were non existent when the Constitution was debated and eventually signed. Madison even gave warning to them and other " political factions " in the Federalist Papers. My original comment was simply that Thomas Jefferson was out of the country when our Constitution was drafted. He had nothing to do with it. That's it.

Liberty for some.

@@jedsa05 yeah, yeah, yeah. Tom was a bit of a hypocrite.

both charachters are quite similar, quiet, misunderstood, stubborn and too principled for their own good

@@simonrooney2272 Yes but Tom wasn't prepared to go out to the battlefield to get liberty like Stannis....hell he took out a fair number of folks before Brienne hacked him.

@@maestroclassico5801 Maybe in the show, but in the books Stannis led his army from the back

hm, did not notice that

Actually, I recognize Stannis as Jefferson from here lol

Oh my GOSH ! Thank you !! every time I looked at Jefferson’s face I’m thinking I know this man’s face I know him ... But his name just wouldn’t come to me then then the wheels in my head shed a little bit of the rust when I read the person’s reply immediately before yours (When I read they are a little hint ending with Fewer ( vs. Less) ” I thought no way could be is the actor that plays Stannis on GOT ??!! Then when I read your comment I couldn’t believe it and I’m berating myself for failing to recognizing Steven Dillane he is such an amazing actor. This series really has a lot of heavy hitters they’re all over the place and none of them are megawatt stores but they are stars of incredible quality incredible character actors that’s why I couldn’t recognize Mr. Dillane He is a Chameleon.... thank you so very much!! For your help and for your big reveal and in keeping with the spirit of this excellent miniseries : A very good day to you sir!!

Uhh, is this supposed to be a response to someone?

@@sernoddicusthegallant6986 I'm assuming it is a response to the sjw and feminist bullshit that's currently plaguing the western world.

Being subject to the crown or not is NOT their greatest contribution. A government selected and called forth by the people into being to protect their rights, with federalism, peaceful cooperation, open trade, freedoms hitherto unmentioned and never again so well written, and a pathway to disentangle ourselves from slavery, superstition, and monarchy...that was the contribution.

Hell, Queen Elizabeth II is _surely_ better than either Biden or Trump!

You know what, I agree with you 100%. I think that's why I can agree wholeheartedly with both of them. In the long run, Jefferson's vision would be perfect, but realistically, Adams made sense.

yissychan Jefferson feared the wealthy few in the new America would want to control the govt., leaving the rabble as Adams used to refer to the rest of us in their wise care. The Federalists almost got their way in 1800. Jefferson was correct and we now see the rise of the wealthy few taking control today. The trouble with Adams was not his belief in having a rule of law but who he felt should make the decisions regarding the laws. He was in the group that prefered the educated land owners (the rich of America) be responsible for making the rules. Jefferson wanted all men to have a say in the rules and be able to change those rules as the generations changed with the times.

Yes... but actually the form of government that Jefferson preferred is what enabled the wealthy few to rise to power in the first place. They rose up because they didn't have governments limiting them and their power.

Robert Lukacs Jefferson also owned slaves while Adams did not. You see, neither man was perfect. Also, I would argue, the fact that this country is being ruled by the rich is actually a byproduct of federal deregulation. As the federal government becomes weaker, the only thing that will naturally take its place are the moneyed interests. It is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

crackshack2 Correction, Adams was right, Jefferson was wrong. Take the French Revolution. Jefferson was sure that liberty would reign. But in the end, tyranny and monarchy took over. And not before countless innocent lives were lost in a blood bath of a Revolution. Human nature is derived from nature and what crueler thing is there than mother nature?