Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (237)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • That opening shot is magnificent. The contrast between the lounging Franklin and stodgy Adams, the beautiful sky, the topiary and statue behind them.

  • Slavery was a world wide norm and common for most of human history well into the 19th century and only declined because some Europeans and Americans started to feel slavery was wrong starting in the 18th century. Revolutionary people tend to create worlds they themselves cannot live in. It is idiotic to dam people who lived in a different time with our morality and values. We praise people like Jefferson because they were a step in the right direction, something better than what proceeded.

  • Comment removed

  • @casdhn I kinda disagree. I would use one of Jefferson quotes to sum up that statement "I would rather have dangerous freedom, then safe slavery" or something along those lines.

  • and consider whether or not some abominable moral practices exist in our time that later generations will correctly censure us for. Abortion, anyone?

  • It is fashionable to rip all the Founding Fathers for owning slaves but the fact is only some of them did and the rest hated slavery. Adams, for instance--along with Franklin, Hamilton, and Paine abhorred it. The ones who did own slaves felt very guilty about it and knew it stood in contradiction to their professed ideals. It is a blot on their characters, to be sure, but it should not obscure their other accomplishments and redeeming qualities. Perhaps we moderns should take a step back

  • @ws81086n Well Thomas Jefferson's idealisms are considered "extreme" by the US MSM apparently in 2011, Ron Paul is totally ignored and called an isolationist, amazing rhetoric.

  • @Baldwynmayhem he believed in a society of only farmers with no manufacturing no banks no commerce

    while Hamilton believed in commerce manufacturing in small new england towns, like modern day suburbia, stable regulated banks, and trade.

    jefferson was a southern aristocrat who loved revolution but never fought in it

    Hamilton was an orphan self made immigrant who stood up for all men not just whites he increased the size government to prevent the suffering and death caused by lack of supplies

  • @Baldwynmayhem so we don't live in jefferson's world we live in Hamiltons the self made orphan, miltary man who always gets painted as an aristocrat while jefferson the southern aristocrat gets painted as a populist.

    jefferson didnt even govern by his ideals at all. the embargo act, louisana purchase, he kept the national bank and all the financial infrastructure he made because it worked.

    Hamilton and the federalist wrote the constitution maybe you should listen to their interpretation.

  • @ws81086n I cant believe Jefferson had slaves after writing and saying what he had, amazing really. But anyway, I personally still agree with Jefferson moreso than the watered down Tories like Adams/Hamilton.

  • Both great men, but Adams was right. Jefferson was a champion of the Enlightenment; Adams a more hard-minded classicist. The classical position was sounder because it took into account the limits of human reason and the natural inequality that would always exist among men. Jefferson's influence on America and the democratic tradition generally goes a long way towards explaining the presumption of people in modern societies and our more radical forms of egalitarianism. 

  • the english language is beautiful if spoken correctly

  • Jefferson is going to be a great Stannis Baratheon! GOT for the win!

  • "One Generation Cannot bind another"

    Crap, Jefferson would have been run out of the country had he said those words to today's congress.

  • (One Free Nation (((Not))) Under God) 

  • Real freedom has yet to be achieved. America's people are greatly controlled by the government. The government is in our every day lives. Perhaps crime is so prominent because of the massive control our government has over us-- it gets people to rebel. We should have a right to do with our lives whatever we see fit. It is until our actions hurt the lives of others that the Law should interfere. Tell a child it can never eat chocolate, the child will eat the chocolate. We don't grow out of that.

  • Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our day. I hope others can see that. Great HBO special. Ron Paul 2012!!!

  • A dream perhaps - to be a fly on a nearby leaf to witness the birth of an idea that germinated into a nation,,,,what a chance that would be to see this moment and many others of that precious time in real life. Would we be disappointed to see what history was really like?

  • john adams was an idiot ultimately. Never was a fan of his ideas.James madison and Jefferson were the real brains for liberty

  • BTW, Ron Paul is known as Today's Thomas Jefferson!

    Ron Paul 2012

  • (A)NARCHY is the only form of Freedom.

  • @Leftovervictim1991 freedom is a perspective of lines drawn with guns and blood and signing papers which end up being used as toilet paper.

  • Jefferson claimed few successes in his presidency, even though there were several. Exploration of the West, Louisiana Purchase, maintaining neutrality during foreign wars.

    However, Federalist opponent Hamilton was indeed a stellar Treasury head.

  • @SSArcher11 a stellar traitor to individual liberty as well.

  • Jefferson, contrary to popular belief, was not a good President. Any success that he claimed was largely due to the work of Alexander Hamilton, and his policies that basically ended the US Navy of the day, were what let the British so easily invade during the War of 1812.

  • @YNot1989 Hamilton was a proponent of the Federal institutions that rape this country today. Congratulations.

  • @PoetsLight hamilton was a douche bag.

  • @YNot1989 the british invaded because we invaded british canada first you dimwit.

  • @Mathew1985AZ

    Doesn't change the fact that the Jeffersonian idealistic policies made that ill conceived war into the cluster fuck that it became.

  • lol at 2:02

  • Thomas Jefferson 

  • I loved the series on Adams and appreciate his role as both a president and founding father of our union, however I would LOVE to see a similarly styled miniseries centered on Thomas Jefferson, a giant among men. His political philosophy is outstanding and is reflected greatly in the founding documents of the United States. Jefferson surely merits a miniseries.

  • Jefferson was an absolutely great thinker and philosopher. His words are timeless

  • Maybe if we used our faith ON our fellow man instread of invisible sky daddies and their virgin mothers... we would be in a better boat.

  • @ORACLE063

    Just look back to the Soviet Union. There you'll find the perfect example of how an anti-religion government expressed its "faith" in its own people and how it turned out. :-)

  • @77thNYSV

    I'm starting to wonder if your devestating post didn't drive your target to Church.

  • @77thNYSV Thomas Jefferson was a deist not an atheist. They believed in God but not a constantly there involved in everything God. They believed everything was mechanically set in motion not constantly being changed by God. Communism however believes in no religion and puts people on the level of sub human and that you are part of the state not an individual. Thomas Jefferson believed in Man in other words.. Communism brings man down and destroys hims. Don't confuse the two.

  • "Through which will pour the forces of reaction" - WHAT A FUCKING VISIONARY!!! That line he spoke is soooooo on the money. I truly wish that TJ was an immortal.

  • does anyone know how a message could be sent to hbo that jefferson needs his own spin off? to be honest, i liked watching his scenes more than adams. dillane is the perfect jefferson, he's so good at being him. i'd love to see more focus on jefferson, about his family especially.

  • Amazing... Jefferson the radical free thinker continues to challenge the ethic of all ideologues of government. The founding father is questioning the validity of the Constitution itself in this scene!

  • @mistax2k The Constitution undoes itself.

  • Adams ain't wrong.

  • I loved this miniseries, I was sad when it ended. It was so brilliant and the portrayal of Mr. Jefferson was amazing, as well as Mr. Adams and all the other character's.

  • That's generational sovereignty he was talking about, right?

    Man I love their Thomas Jefferson, he's spot on.

  • I love how accurately this series portrayed Jefferson; there was no bias as far as I could tell.

  • 1:06

  • John Adams Smoking Pot= Priceless!

  • thomas jefferson has arabic ancestors!! i know he looks european but alot of arabic people can pass as europian!! he taught himself arabic and has a copy of the caran in his personal library! first arabic president was him!

  • @JUKIO01 also when he is a hyprocrite! all he talked about was freedom of the people, yet he had slaves and never freed them when he died! he also had sex with a slave woman. he was born rich and never had to work for himself. all truth!!!

  • @JUKIO01 first six presidents were alll elites! 4 were rich tobacco farmers, and 2 were from the same blood, all of them were chosen by each other and not chosen by the people!!

  • @JUKIO01

    Massive debt and economics is what kept Jafferson from freeing most of his slaves. Also, Sally Hemmings was three-quarters caucasian because she was the half-sister of Jefferson's deceased wife, Martha. While it is unclear if Jefferson himself slept with her, but there is DNA evidence of Jefferson family blood in her descendants. If Jefferson did have relations with Sally, he probably has romantic feelings for her, but it would not be mentioned in public (for her protection).

  • @JUKIO01

    Partially Arabic... because he wrote his own version of the Bible, not necessarily all 1,000+ Pages, just his own simplified version

  • In a way--a most disturbing way--Jefferson's lines about past laws not binding future generations seem to foreshadow the Living, Breathing Document theory of the Constitution of today.

    The irony is, Thomas would have been disgusted with the likes of Justice Ginsburg....

  • @RushLimborg The concept of a "living, breathing Constitution" is the "breach through which will pour the forces of reaction," I think. An objective Constitution would have preserved his revolutionary ideal of limited government and individual liberty. I certainly agree with you regarding Justice Ginsburg.

  • youtube.com/watch?v=lyIa9Y_KwN­A

  • @tudssquadbuisness the reason that they spoke better English than us in our contemporary time, is because all of them are British. They still spoke "british english" and did until the early 20th century. Their vocabualry was still very refined and proper.

  • Comment removed

  • @tudssquadbuisness, not to be too harsh but, don't you mean "Our" founding fathers?

    ;)... Besides, those three spoke better English because they were written to do so for the movie- not to mention the fact that they, in very really real life, perhaps, were the three brightest minds in American history to date.

    To read the discussions and debates between Jefferson and Franklin with the French Abbots over wine is good fun.

  • @ChipDWood You're right. My bad.

  • @tudssquadbuisness i hate the words founding fathers, they didnt really find america, it was already there. they should be called "framers" of amerca

  • @JUKIO01 it's not founding as in "finding",

    it's founding as in "foundation".

    they layed the foundation of our country's principles.

  • @baezalejandro they didnt find the country, they are the ones that framed the country

  • @JUKIO01 i thought i established that already... 0.o

    it's like calling JFK the "founder" of the Peace Corps. He CREATED it.

    i don't know where u keep getting "find" from...

  • @tudssquadbuisness the answer to that is government schools.

  • @tudssquadbuisness That is because back then they read books for entertainment. The ability to read and write back then was something normally the rich could only afford. To speak the way he does, means he came from a very wealthy family, which he did.

  • @mrceebees14 I don't think they were all that rich. I'm reading his biography and his father had to sell 10 acres of land to send him to law school. And he was the only one of his brothers that got to go to college. He absolutely loved to read and after law school he had a standing order at the book store for every new law book that came in.

  • @egrewing74 I didn't say Adams was rich, I gave an example of how it was back then if you could read and write. Education was not public, those institutions were treated like private businesses. The poor could not afford to go and the rich had their own means of education.

    There are of course those exception to the rules, Adams came from a poor family, but was adamant about learning and like you said, he loved the law.

  • @tudssquadbuisness Indeed, I found myself thinking the same thing, it's really beautiful when you can express yourself like that.

  • @tudssquadbuisness *Our

    "You sir, are a walking contradiction"

  • @LordSuperCow Someone already pointed that out and I know I misused the word. To be honest I forgot about it.

  • @tudssquadbuisness

    Everyone spoke that way. Have not you read older literature?

  • Let's not forget the other error made in the writing of this classic debate as it was born between the two. Adams calls both Massachusetts as well as Virginia "our own States"- which they were NOT, nor are they NOW. Both are COMMONWEALTHS. Matter of fact, Adams liked the idea so much he cribbed it from Virginia and APPLIED IT HIMSELF when helping to write "his own STATE'S" constitution, IN WHICH it declares itself as a commonwealth.

  • "And you display a ,dangerous, level of faith in your fellow man Mr. Jefferson" Adams.

    I would rather put my faith in man(gods creation) more than laws and government(mans creation). I understand Adam's worries and that is one paradox that disturbs me today. How to create a totally free people without the need for laws and government. If anyone figures that out let me know. lol

  • I'm with jefferson here.

  • Next time you cult worshippers of the president want to discuss "getting back to the way the Founders meant things to be" think about what you are saying.

    Women get no rights. black/mixed race or "savage" men, as they called N Am peoples either be slave, live somewhere else or be extirminated (Jeffersons words).

    Yes, THOSE were just some of their values; practicing religious men who wouldnt even let blacks in thier churches, unless they were building or cleaning it.

    Great values if ur a nazi

  • "if we are ever constrained to lift the hatchet, against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is extirminated or driven beyond the Mississippi"

    Jefferson then says

    "In war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them" Aug 28, 1807 to Sec of War Henry Dearborn

    If ANY German in WW2 said that , we would all know about it. You people have no clue what kind of man Jefferson was, a racist who advocated the Genocide of NA peoples and practised slavery - "hero" in the US

  • A cult worship video dedicated to 1) a slave owner 2) a man who killed NA peoples.

    "freedom and liberty' by a man who owned hundreds of slaves and hunted down the runaways!

    "All men are created equal" except "merciless Indian savages" as Jefferson calls NA peoples in the Declaration of Indep. But Americans cant read that far down...

    Emperor worship was of the Caesars. Now u do it to ur presidents..Kim Il-Song would be proud. Do u heil ur "dear leader" Jefferson from Ol Viginny?

  • @EBanonymous

    You do know that Jefferson wanted to include the end of slavery in the declaration of independence, dont you?

  • @Wraith23

    No, Jefferson did not want to end slavery in the Dec of Indep. In the 1st Original Draft he CLAIMED the King of England forced slavery on the Americans who resisted it.

    One problem. It was so blatantly false that the Congress decided to remove that part. Jefferson & those men weren't opposed to slavery at all, which is why they OWNED slaves.

  • @EBanonymous

    Jefferson included the part to end slavery but it was denied because of opposition to the idea by some some states. He was against slavery but saw no way to end it quickly.

    And while Jefferson owned slaves he freed many of them.

  • @Wraith23

    That's a right load of rubbish. Jefferson was not opposed to salvery. There is 0 evidence that supports ur claim.

    The man owned slaves all his life, and made his fortune from them. If he had been opposed to slavery for even one day, he never would have slaves. Peroid.

    Second, he would not have raped his slaves either. Or do Sally Hemings descendants mean nothing? Slavery, rape & Gemocide of the N Am peoples. He's no better than a nazi, and ur an apologist.

  • @EBanonymous

    Please stop embarrassing yourself and read a damn history book.

    Jefferson supported the legislation to ban slave-trade in Virginia and when in office tried to ban slavery in the western territories.

    By the way Jefferson couldn't free his slaves since that was outlawed by the constitution of Virginia and in fact he died in debt so your argument of "his fortune" is even more ignorance.

  • Thanks to president Jefferson the slave trade was ended in 1807, his actions are very clear.

  • @Wraith23 I HATE how people rake Jefferson over the coals. Jefferson does appear hypocritical in his views on slavery, but no one ever looks at it through the perspective of the 18th century. He was considered radical on his abolitionist views as a Virginia planter and tried more times than anyone to abolish slavery in the Virginia House of Burgesses.

  • @Wraith23 The slave trade ended in 1807? England did not abolish it until 1834, the United States until 1863, ratified and put into law as the 13th amendment in 1865.

  • @mrceebees14 The international slave trade,not slavery itself.

  • @rimidalv47 Just looked it up, it's actually 1808.

  • @Wraith23 Oh but they still got sold down the missishippi

  • @Wraith23 yes the slaveholder gets credit for ending the slave trade because the constitution mandated it. I suppose you also hate Alexander Hamilton a man who hated slavery and said that a free educated black had the same average natural ability as a free educated white man. Jefferson meanwhile had doubts that they possessed this ability.

    just because he was president do not mean he deserves frankly any credit for that clause.

  • @sfafasfasfsa

    Jefferson's stance on black men's intelligence hates slavery too, but the economic stability of the South and his massive debt (millions by today's standard) prohibited him from freeing his.

    Mind you I believe slavery and claiming any man is less intelligent that the other is grossly wrong.

  • @karritto

    No i agree with you, but to say jefferson was the main guy behind ending the slave trade 1807 is incorrect.

    I agree that he hated slavery look at his home he would never have to see his great shame. it was his fatal flaw, reminds us that he was human.

    my main thing with jefferson is that he should have left economic details to others and focused on philosphy. it was like walt disney trying to do accounting. he was a dreamer and a visionary and very intelligent not an economist.

  • @karritto and yes i do believe at that point stability was more necessary, because a) they were an example to the rest of the world that a republic could work

    and b) if they would have fought eachother some states called for forgien aid, and many states would become subjects to either the french or british empires

  • @Wraith23

    Many slave owners supported ending the slave trade. It wasn't needed. But they weren't against slavery. You're confusing the 2. You also don't discuss 2 reasons WHY they wanted to end slave trade: not in their economic interest & fear of slave insurrection (Vessey Denmark etc).

    Slave owners didn't want slavery in Nest Territory for same reasons, not because of abolition. That's what you can read in not only history books, but in their own writings

  • @EBanonymous

    You are contradicting yourself again, when saying he was a "racist" and that he "raped" Sally Hemings. Which one is it? did he love her enough to have children with her or did he hated the race?

    Your childish comparison with nazism was very funny especially considering Jefferson work on human liberty.

    It is you who are just a troll here.

  • @EBanonymous

    Even more you cant make "slaves" of N Am people and then commit "genocide" on them thats just an absurd position.

    And for your information african americans are NOT natives to America.

  • @Wraith23

    You don't know the definition of Genocide or the most basic of facts. Native Americans were sold on Wall St as slaves & were literal slaves in Mass & other places. They were virtual slaves economically as a direct result of Jefferson's ethnocide policies & "civilising" them.

    Jefferson in 1807 - same yr discusses war preparations to kill Natives in the Northwest Territory. Hitler directly said he took inspiration from Americans

    I never sais Africans were from the American continent.

  • @EBanonymous

    "You don't know the definition of Genocide or the most basic of facts."

    At least I can make informed arguments without repeating in every post the same basic fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

    "Native Americans were sold on Wall St as slaves & were literal slaves in Mass & other places. They were virtual slaves economically as a direct result of Jefferson's ethnocide policies & "civilising" them.

    False

    "Hitler directly said he took inspiration from Americans"

    Absurd

  • @Wraith23

    Hitler did copy the US Genocide fo the Native American tribes:

    John Toland, Adolf Hitler, 1976.p. 702 "Hitler's concept of concentration camps ... genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history...He admired the camps for...ndians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination -- by starvation and uneven combat -- of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.

  • @Wraith23

    Joachim Fest, Hitler, 1973, p. 214 Hitler's "continental war of conquest" was modeled "with explicit reference to the United States"

    Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death "Hitler saw the settlement of the New World and the concomitant elimination of North America's Indian population by white European settlers as a model to be followed by Germany on the European continent"

    Your idea that this is "absurd" reveals you deny the facts

  • @EBanonymous

    Pathetic.

    I suppose you also consider that the NAZI party followed the peace and order of the ancient Indus Civilization, after all Hitler was inspider by their swastikas.

  • @Wraith23

    As to Native American slaves being sold on Wall St - that's "African slaves" - my typo. The Dutch forced them to build Wall St after they murdered a tribe in NJ (hence the need for a wall), then they built Broadway, the fort, the dock. The English continued slavery there and sold Africans at the "slave market" which is today Wall St & Water St.

    The English did make some of the tribes their slaves - NY & Mass like w/ the Pequots in 1673 & other tribes. So did Columbus

  • @Wraith23

    And as he was writing the Dec of Independence, what was Jefferson doing?

    Jefferson was trying to hunt down the 20 runaway slaves who ran away from his plantation to join the British and fight for thier freedom.

    Same time. Same man. Same plantation owner. This "abolitionist" was so quick to go after those slaves. How can you be Against something and ado that thing.

    Let's see. Ur against drunkenss. But u drink. Words here mean not a damn thing. Actions count mate.

  • @EBanonymous

    Jefferson was the JFK and MLK of his day. Hating him for being a slave owner then is like hating someone today for owning a car. Slavery was a left over trait from Europe. It was common. Today looking back it is wrong. But it was very profitable and common then. If these men were so evil and wrong why is it they created a nation and laws which gave us freedom and equality.

  • @Jononutoob

    JFK - another criminal who launched ilegal war in Cuba, Vietnam and got a lot of innocent people killed. He was no Civil Rights activist, but a politican who supported crimes of aggression & is credited w/ beginng the Vietnam War. What Vietmanese rights?

    MLK? You compare Jefferson to him? MLK was adamately opposed to Vietnam War, racial descrimination. Jefferson advocated war & fought Nat ive Americans for land. He was a big racist & wrote that blacks were inferior in Notes on VA.

  • @EBanonymous

    JFK wanted to end the Vietnam war. Im not sure how you consider JFK a pro war president. He did all he could to avoid war. Many would say he was killed for it. I suppose you would say Bobby Kennedy was racist and pro war too. And Jefferson never wanted war. He wanted independence. When Britain said no, then war was the only choice. Calling him racist is laughable. Who wasnt racist? It was the 1700s.

  • @Jononutoob

    Based on Oliver Stone's movie? JFK began the war & had NO intention of ending it. That is just false, & Chomsky's book "rethinking Camelot" reviews the documentary evidence.

    I didn't say RFK was racist & I could care less; but he ran the terrorist war against Cuba, and that's a fact. These reckless men brought the woprld close to a nuclear war, & in 02' it was revealed just how close we came to it.

    Read Jefferson's Aug 28, 1807 letter to Henry Dearborn "we shall kill all"

  • @EBanonymous

    Ha! You sir are really entertaining. I cant say this any other way. JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam. Chomsky? Ha. Well then I guess you're right. Cause he knows.LOL I suggest you look at this further.

  • @Jononutoob

    If you seriously want to discuss this, then send me a private message, as this place is just too small.

    I don't need to refer to Chomsky on JFK,. And I'd be careful about repeating the scapling argument. Rmember who was killling whom and why. One had land, and one wanted it. Native Americnas wee not running around killing people; that was the Europeans and Americans.

    I don't think he was an exception. He was like other slave owners.

  • @Jononutoob

    Jefferson in that 1807 letter - among other places - orders the Sec of War to make preparations to fight the Prophet (Tecumseh's brother) and uses "savages" term. He was also a supporter of ethnocide & Genocide. I don't mince words. Jefferson in his own book "Notes on Virginia" says blacks were inferior, and he had 100's of slaves. That's not racist? Then what is?

    Anyway, what's important is what he did, not his racism per se. Genocide & slavery are pretty bad things, no?

  • @Jononutoob I can't message you because of your "friend lock"; if you want I can send you well respected sources like the Library of Congress etc on how I can say these things.

  • @EBanonymous

    Jefferson owned slaves. YES. Back then that was like owning a car today. It was a social norm at the time so get over it. Everybody had them. Now in terms of Jefferson wanting to murder natives. I can provide dozens of Jefferson's writings which prove different. Jefferson worked hard to bring peace. But when natives scalp American women and children Jefferson became upset. He then responded. You make it seem like he went out of his way to own slaves and kill natives. Look it up.

  • @Jononutoob well, that's not enitrely true. Only the rich southerners could afford slaves and needed them for their large plantations. however, Since Jefferson was , in fact , a planter, it makes sense that had them. Most of the South was morally opposed to slavery, Hence why the called it "our curious institution" or as Jefferson called it" a necessary evil". I completely agree with you, Jefferson is by far my favorite founding father I just wanted to clarify on that common misconception.

  • @handsofstone21 Slaves built the white house, which isnt in southern US. Slaves were everywhere, southern plantation owners just owned alot more of them. Perhaps my comment can be interpreted as slaves were equally existent throughout the colonies. And you are right, many more slaves were south. But as I made a mistake so did you, "only the rich southerners could afford slaves" is not correct either. As slaves were commonly sold in the northern colonies and often stayed there.

  • @Jononutoob

    And killing jews in Germany during the nazi regime was like having breakfast. All justified for the times.

  • @jxsilicon9 Oh please. Dramatics and emotion are no place for honest discussion of time periods. I hate the idea of slavery, but as a white man I cant say if I was born in that time if I would have had slaves or not. We are only what our surroundings make us. Slavery was common all over the world for thousands of years. It is not the same as putting jews in oven and burning them alive.

  • @Jononutoob

    Well they enslave the Jews also. So is that just like owning a car?

  • @jxsilicon9 Cars are norms for us. We use them to make our lives easier. We look at them as objects. In that sense yes slaves can be compared to cars of today. There are far better examples out there. I am simply saying that slavery was a common aspect of life back then. Many had slaves, some treated them very badly, a few treated them well. I would consider the cruel treatment of slaves to be far more sickening than slavery itself. And why the jews? Most peoples were slaves at some point.

  • @EBanonymous

    Are you so desperate to have a semi-logical argument that you are inventing facts now?

    Jefferson owned a plantation and slaves because thats was the socially accepted institution then, an institution inherited from the british, but even though he possessed slaves he made every action possible for us to consider him an "abolitionist".

  • i think i'm gonna write in thomas jeffersons name in the next presidential election, he could govern better from the grave than the sorry excuses for candidates we have today

  • The United States as a government and as a working entity for the benefit of its people is and has been a great experiment. It is an experiment that is ongoing and its strength being strengthened in the furnace of of a Republic and perfected in a peoples democracy. It is not a perfect state of government but with all its faults its dam well near it!

  • We need another Jefferson and Adams. Two passionate and moral men.

  • Imo, this scene is the most important scene in the series. It outlines the next evolutionary state of "free" governance. But, it will not happen for a long while for a few reasons.

  • Thomas Jefferson is correctly portrayed as someone with Aspergers Syndrome.

  • no congress shall be bound by any other congress

    health care reform will fall very soon

  • This mini-series made me feel proud to be British, quite surprisingly. It was because the colonists thought their inherent rights as freeborn Britons were being denied that they felt the need for revolution.

  • the man was a slaveowner, of course.

  • I think this scene, more than anything else, establishes the key difference between Libertarians (Jefferson) and Conservatives (Adams).

    I could just see this kind of conversation taking place between Ron Paul/Bob Barr (Jefferson), Mitt Romney/Sarah Palin/Patrick J Buchanan (Adams) and Ronald Reagan (Franklin).

  • @RushLimborg

    I find it offensive as a REAL patriot that you lump the founders of this republic with such a rapacious and repugnant sort that places party / ideology over liberty. Those losers you hold in such high esteem are puppets to their banking masters. Jefferson was describing something beyond "libertarianism" and whatever "ism" you may be fond of.

  • @biped19 While I agree with you, labeling Ron Paul as a puppet to banks is an insult to his character as he wants to destroy the most powerful bank in the world, and despises it with the same fire that Thomas Jefferson had for the Federalist ideas of his time.

  • @biped19

    Excuse me? Without "ideology", you have nothing to fight for. What do you believe in? THAT is your "ideology".

  • Stephen Dillane's portrayal of Thomas Jefferson in this scene is absolutely fantastic.

    I demand a spin-off series.

  • @TheGreatPrince Me too! I'd watch the "HBO's George Washington (played by the same actor of course)" and i'd so watch a "HBO's Thomas Jefferson" played by stephen dillane of course

  • @Freedom21stCenturi

    Oh wow! I hadn't thought of that before, but I agree!

    I would definitely watch both of those, and buy a nice fat box set later on!

    That would be a masterpiece series rivaling "I, Claudius!"

    However, "John Adams" was regarded do highly, I hope HBO wouldn't do a rush job and ruin it all...

    Provided HBO kept the same primary actors and production values, it would really be worth it.

    Even though it might be expensive, it would probably be very lucrative for them in the end.

  • It's funny how John Adams describes Jefferson here as a "walking contradiction". Jefferson was very vocal in his opposition to slavery--and yet he owned slaves himself. To his credit, Tom treated his slaves well, more like servants, but still....

  • Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner

  • @88Willhur

    Well, it was the late 1700's

  • Did Benjamin Franklin fart at 0:26? Hahaha. I LOVE this series!

  • @PseudoSenator I love this series too. I guess it's suppose to be an insect flying around, but it totally sounds like Franklin blew some lightning out of his Arse.

  • @madmaxit2

    Ben Frankling would have made a great President. Why didn't he run?

  • @pluto4847 He was too old and probably knew his time was coming to an end.

    Besides, he had to make what time he had left to hook-up with all of those French Madams : )

    Seriously though, he knew he was too old.

  • Best scene of the whole darn thing!

  • Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson

  • @moviemakerHiD2 Although I agree with premise of the statement, its important to advance society as well. When TJefferson made those comments most of the population lived on farms in sparsely populated areas. There were a lot of drifters and groups of drifters looking to squat on land and settle. We didn't have modern police force and the same laws. Being armed was essential in maintaining a balance. Although I support the right to own a gun.

  • @xyz321123 I agree with you that it was a sparsely populated society, but Jefferson was aware of this and he did remark on the difference between different societies. He warned that "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe". He sensed the inevitability of corruption in cosmopolitan society.

  • @xyz321123 The issue is whether the the inception of the Second Amendment, at the time of its adoption, can be incorporated by the limitations of a fundamental principle within today's society. The principle is self-preservation, an essential element of Liberty. Jefferson's statement, however, is still relevant. Laws only inhibit the rights of those who intend to purchase guns legally, but those who wish to commit a crime usually obtain guns by other means. A gun does not preclude intent.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • word man

  • In referance to the last point made; Jefferson would have vindicated Adams if he had seen the average American today.

  • do you think you American friends sounded that British 230 years ago? :-)

  • @sipedam Yes they came over & setteled here Duh! most of our ways came from england

  • It is soooo Amazing how God put so many Brilliant Men in one place at one time and now our Government considers them Terrorist :-(

  • god doesn't exist. P.S., you're insane.

  • I believe that our 'founding fathers' were indeed brilliant, but at the time they weren't as compromised by outside influences as our lawmakers are now. No doubt there are some very brilliant men in our government at the moment, but most seem restrained against doing what they may know is right for America. If we were to try to build a nation with the foundations of government we have today in the same way our founding fathers did with their foundations it simply couldn't be done.

  • Sadly, I certainly agree with you. Well thought out post!

  • Lawmakers today are to into their careers, their investments, the more money they can get, and so on than they do about creating a free and equal society. But remember that even back then there were obstacles and outside influences that prevented a true classically liberal nation. After all the constitution only really guaranteed rights to rich white men to the exclusion of women, non-whites, and poor whites. Slavery was still legal and no good safeguards were put in place to stop big government

  • Comment removed

  • @septrenarion

    No, not Ron Paul. Even Jefferson was more of a hawk than Ron Paul. Ron Paul would NOT have sent the marines to Tripoli to deal with the pirates, like Jefferson did--Ron, bless his heart, would have made a speech about how our "imperialist" trade with Europe caused the pirated to attack--and would have recalled all our merchant ships.

  • @RushLimborg

    I think Ron would've issued letters of Marque and Reprisal, and put a bounty on the pirates head. Let private citizens protect their property and trade routes however they want, without getting the national military involved.

  • I wish jefferson was a man who spoke more, he may have covinced some of fellow revolutionaries to support the idea of, shall I say, "To have more faith in humanity"

    *sighs*

    If only he were at the constituional convention.

  • Indeed, there were many errors in our constitution that he could have prevented.....which is why we live in a modern America devoid of fundamental personal freedoms. For one there should have been a clear law in the constitution stating that rights can never be taken away no matter what, and that all people are free to do what they want as long as they do not violate the rights of others. Now a days it's considered constitutional to take away the right to ingest what one wants for instance.

  • 0:26 Ben Franklin farts.

    Anyone ever read his book "Farting Proudly"? I ripped a good one there.

    Also, it's a good read fyi