Blog #25 – Reactions to the John Adams’ video – Join or Die
You’ve had a first hand account (as much as possible with today’s limitation of time travel) with the Boston Massacre and the personalities of John and Abigail Adams.
Please answer the following questions:
John and Abigail Adams
1. What did you think of the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams? Did they seem like real people as opposed to iconic historical figures who lived over 200+ yrs ago? Specific examples.
2. In your personal opinion, who was to blame for the Boston Massacre? Were the dock workers more to blame than the British soldiers? Was the Royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson, to blame for stationing the soldiers there? Or was it rabble rousers like Samuel Adams who may have stirred up the crowd enough to get them to attack the soldiers?
3. Was the court’s decision the right one in acquitting the soldiers? Why or why not? Also, why do you think Adams refused payment for his legal services after the case was over?
300 words minimum for the entire blog comment. Due Wednesday, October 12 before class.
1. John and Abigail Adams were portrayed more realistically than I would think in an HBO series. Many films portray historical figures as having an aristocratic personality, and you can be sure that this was not actually the case. Just like any normal people, John and Abigail constantly Jab at and bicker with each other, but not exactly in a hostile way. Also, history portrays John Adams as a revolutionary, patriotic figure, and his defense of the Boston massacre soldiers is hardly portrayed in most accounts, if at all.
2. In my opinion, the blame for the Boston massacre lies between both the soldiers and the rabble-rousers. The patriots are to blame because they were antagonizing armed soldiers who were obviously peeved that they had to stand out in the winter in the first place, and having objects thrown at them did not help. On top of this confusion, a yell of “fire” would lead soldiers to fire if they weren’t careful. On the other hand, the soldiers were at fault because their lives were not in danger, and they should have recognized the voice of their commanding officers. In addition, even if the voices were indistinguishable, they should have been aware of where the voice was coming from.
3. I think the court made the right decision in acquitting the soldiers. The circumstances and testimony more than proved that the shootings were not out of malice. In the worst case, they were self defense, and the probable case was accidental. a voice yelling “fire” in the chaos easily could have been mistaken for an order from the commanding officer. I think John Adams refused payment for his legal services because he knew that taking the case would increase his reputation of impartiality, and taking a payment could be seen as leaning more toward the side of the English.
1. John and Abigail Adams seemed like real people who just so happened are iconic historical figures. John Adams seemed like he had a short fuse. When he was irritated everything around started to bother him. For example when John Adams was agitated and his son and daughter were running around he immediately snapped, which is normal. They also showed real feelings during the massacre and the trial. When John Adams ran outside to see if there was a fire, and ran back in and said that nothing happened that was real fatherly thing to do. Abigail showed “real people feelings” when she saw John Adams returns from his trip or when she was excited that her husband won the trial.
2. A lot of people were to blame for the Boston Massacre. The dock workers were to blame because you can’t keep antagonizing people by daring the soldiers to fire. The workers were also partially at fault for throwing objects such as ice, shells, and clubs. This could have severely injured the soldiers and caused casualties and the soldiers could have retaliated even more. I honestly can’t remember why the soldiers were there in the first place but I vaguely remember that the soldiers were unneeded there other to aggravate the citizens of Boston. “Rabble Rousers” are also at fault because when there are a large number of people in one place and when one person does or says something they all must do or say something. This is called the band-wagon effect. Samuel Adams knows that people are easily persuaded and suffer from the band-wagon effect therefore he shouldn’t have insinuated the problem. Ultimately the workers and Ramble Rousers were to blame. Even though people have their own brain many times they don’t use their own they want to use someone else’s and do what they say, influential people such as Sam Adams should not continue to start rift raft or trouble.
3. To me the court’s decision on acquitting the soldiers was not fair. Though the death of five people may have been manslaughter there still should be some kind of reprimands. The soldiers should have been fired or sentenced to some time because lives were still lost. Soldiers should know how to control a “mob” or large crowd. The soldiers could have shot in the air and taken some of the workers to jail for assault with a deadly weapon (club or ice). Sam Adams might have still somewhat agreed with the prosecution or the patriots and that was his reason for not accepting the money.
1. The portrayal of John Adams was breathtakingly amazing. I’ve seen Paul Giamatti star in a fair share of roles, but none as daunting and challenging as this. Paul absolutely kills it, in a good way, of course. With the cinematography the way it was, I felt as if I was actually in the court room with John and Captain Preston and the others. It was quite thrilling, I’ll have to admit.
It was quite awkward when Abby and John kissed, though. I would think that seasoned professionals would know how to kiss better than that. But perhaps Abigail and John’s relationship was strained at times, I’m not sure.
2. I was chosen as a loyalist in our royal round of tweeting on Monday. The entire time, I was cheering for the Redcoats to pull through. Because I took on the role of a loyalist, I saw the soldiers as common men, not just oppressive Brits sent to enforce laws. They thought that they were obeying orders. Thinking back, John Adams defended the men beautifully. The Boston jury would’ve sent these men to the gallows in a Boston minute if Adams hadn’t taken the case. I also understand the position of those who provoked the attack. They wanted to further the image of the British being an oppressive, lawless menace. Even though the men were acquitted, that message got through.
3. As I stated before, I cheered on the Brits. I believe it would have been wrong to send all those young men to their death without circumstantial evidence. It would have a serious miscarriage of justice. That’s exactly why John Adams took the case: on the integrity of law. He refused payment for the same reason, he was doing a duty, not a service. In that courtroom, he wasn’t only defending those men, he was defending law as we know it.
0. Do I get extra credit for lending you the movie?
1. I think John and Abigail were portrayed very realistically, they had flaws, they had children, jobs, and other stuff normal people had back then. John was bald, got angry at his kids and couldn’t take off his own boots. Abigail was very sharp witted, played with the children and reviewed her husbands works in court. I think they were portrayed as slightly more educated than the rope makers and rabble rousers of Boston. They both discussed quotes of great men. I believe that they were very realistic characters.
2. the massacre can not be blamed on one person or one group of people. Events like this one rarely occur because of one reason. I think that it is a combination of people who had a bad day running into people they despise and taking a lot of pent up aggression out on a few unlucky men who had guns susceptible to discharging without warning (1700 muskets flat out sucked, I think their hit rate was like 1 in 5) I believe that this debate will be a favorite essay of social studies teachers for years to come. (next to what are the causes of the civil war)
3. The courts choice was probably the right one, killing people who kill people to show that killing is wrong is a foolish way to go about things. The movie showed that there was amble evidence in favor of the soldiers (and John is a kick-ass lawyer) and even though the case went against public opinion it was the right choice to make. Can we watch 12 angry men next?
I think Mr. Adams did not accept the money because he was doing the right think and defending the indefensible was reward enough. Or he was just tired of Captain Preston and didn’t want anything more to do with him.
1. It’s hard to say how well the Adams’ were portrayed in the movie because there is little to compare them to other than history but it seemed pretty accurate overall. Throughout the movie I kept wondering if the filmmaker of the series gave Abigail Adams a more dominant role than she really had because they wanted to appeal to the fact that women have more rights, say, power and education today. It felt like at that time she would have had less influence. I thought John’s treatment of his kids felt formal and accurate and the different wigs made it seem really foreign. The Adams’ did overall seem like real people as opposed to iconic figures who lived long ago.
2. I would blame the British and Governor Thomas Hutchinson for the Boston Massacre because unfairness to the colonial lower orders. By stationing a sentry near the people to make them feel contained Hutchinson made a mistake. Since the people were already angry they took their revenge on the sentry and at that point British soldiers were brought into a non-war area. I don’t think that this incident was the fault of the red coats, I think that the leaders in
England were being selfish.
3. The Court was correct in acquitting the soldiers. It is not their fault that the people above them were being oppressive and creating conflict. I think, like John Adams, that any innocent man is innocent no matter what side of a dispute he’s on. John Adams was really smart to not accept the payment of the soldier because he didn’t want to take a side. Adams did what was the right thing and justice is free. If they had paid him the question may have arisen whether or not the soldiers indeed were guilty.
1. I think John and Abigail Adams were portrayed more as real people rather than iconic historical figures. John was shown to have a temper, as he yelled at his kids often, but he also seemed to love his wife very much and care deeply for her opinion. In this sense, Abigail was shown as an important part of John’s famed impartiality, as she read over his court speeches and gave John advice. (My favorite scene was when Abigail was showing her son how to shoot bullets at the Redcoat soldiers because I thought it portrayed Abigail as having deep distaste for the soldiers, but she was able to swallow that and remain impartial in order to help John throughout his court case, and also showing that she remained loyal to the colonies no matter whose case her husband may take in court.)
2. It is impossible to blame any single group, let alone a single person, for the Boston Massacre because everyone involved played a significant role in it. The soldiers were to blame, because I believe they did not actually feel true fear for their lives, as they were usually used to having the law be on their side. Also, even after the men were dying in front of them, the soldiers continued to shoot. However, I think the rabble rousers and dockworkers were just as much at fault, as they had no right to antagonize the soldiers; the soldiers were not at fault for the high tax or oppression caused by Britain and the men were just using them as a tool to take out their anger onto.
3. The court was right in acquitting the soldiers, because there were many holes in the evidence presented by the prosecution. I’m pretty sure the soldiers were being charged for murder or manslaughter, and I don’t know what the punishment for that crime would have been, but I’m going to assume death. I don’t think its right to put that many men (young men and boys, really) to death without undeniable proof that the acts were deliberately committed with forethought and malice. As I previously mentioned, there were gaping holes in the evidence, as well as the fact that the jury was a group of men who could have had sons and brothers hurt in the massacre, and even if they didn’t, they had as much hatred for the British soldiers as the rabble.
I think Adams could have had two reasons for refusing payment, one being that he wanted to get out of this trial without any harm coming to him or his reputation, with men calling him a British supporter, so he wanted to be able to say that he was just doing his job, and doing so completely to support the law, without taking any sort of compensation for himself. The other, more selfless reason, is that he truly believed that the law is a just and beautiful thing that gave all men an equal chance, so he believed that he was just giving these men an equal chance in court, and he wasn’t doing anything special to require payment.
1. I thought the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams were very good. I did not know the real John and Abigail Adams personally, but I did see them as real people in the movie instead of just two actors portraying as these historical figures. Just the way they treated each other and the things they said to on another made them look like an actual couple living in the hustle and bustle of Boston. Their emotions also seemed genuine to how John and Abigail Adams might have reacted to after the case with the British soldiers and the Boston Massacre. It was very convincing that they were the actual John and Abigail Adams.
2. In my personal opinion I would say the blame for the Boston Massacre should go to everyone. The townspeople had provoked the soldiers to use violence, but the British soldiers still could have handled it a better way than shooting blindly into the crowd and the Royal governor should have realized how unkindly the townspeople were towards the British soldiers. It was unnecessary for the townspeople to throw things at the British soldiers and they should have realized that, much like young children, the soldiers would react. The British soldiers could have tried to yell back or even ran away instead of shooting at the crowd. Their pride may have been damaged a little by doing that, but even then they would not have had the guilt of killing men and even boys. Thomas Hutchinson also did not help the situation at all as well, because he should have seen how things were going on throughout the colonies with the people living there and the British soldiers.
3. I thought the court’s decision on acquitting the soldiers was really not fair. I don’t think they woke up that day planning on killing anyone, but they still did take away five lives and they still should have gotten some penalty for it. I am not saying they should have been hanged or put in jail forever, but I am saying they should have had to do something like whatever form of community service they may have had back then or even be forced to go back to England. Just saying that those soldiers were totally innocent for what they did does not seem completely fair. And I think that Adams had pity on the soldiers when they tried to pay him and that is why he did not accept their payment. He knew they probably felt bad for what they had done and probably realized they were only trying to do what they had been trained to do and therefore did not feel like he should take the money.
1. I believe the movie the did an unbelievable job portraying John and Abigail Adams. They made them seem more like real people which helped me relate to them even more. In the movie it was way before John Adams was president and famous. I believe there were two things that really drove home the idea that they were real people. One is the fact that john ran out to help during the bell just like everyone else did. This drove home the idea that he did NOT feel like was better then anyone else and this really made me feel as if he was normal. Also seeing his family life just made me feel as if they were just a family not the John Adams we had heard of.
2. I believe that the Boston Massacre was not any single groups fault. I think it was due to aggravation and provocation from both parties in the event that caused it. Yes it could have been avoided if either of the sides did something different but that was not the case, both the solders and the people felt pressured and that was why the event occurred, not due to one side picking a fight with other.
3. I believe that it was the right ruling, for al ot of reasons but the most simple in my mind being the fact that there was no substancial evidence and the entire story was based off of personal view and evidence which just makes it hard to buy or believe into. The main reason John Adams did not take payment, was the fact that he felt that what he was doing was so important. As i tweeted he felt that it was his sacred duty to protect the laws, and thus the rights of those in the colony, yes even including solders. He felt that it was for the good and that was why he wanted no payment at all.
I thought that John and Abigail Adams seemed like real people. They lived pretty normal lives and didn’t really seem at all to me like iconic historical figures who lived over 200 years ago. I think this was shown when they were talking to their kids, or when John was asking Abigail for advice on his speech.
I think that the dock workers were more to blame for the Boston Massacre than the British Soldiers. I think that the crowd was being stirred up and were trying to get the soldiers to shoot. This definitely shows that they crowd was responsible for the Boston Massacre especially since they hit one of the soldiers first before anyone fired into the crowd. The crowd was harassing the soldiers, they had a right to be mad in the first place and were given a perfectly good reason to shoot when one of them was hit on the head with a club. I think it was partially the British Soldiers fault, but only because they fired their weapons, I mean that puts them at immediate fault because they were the ones who killed people; thus they were responsible for the massacre part of the Boston Massacre.
I think the court made the right decision when they acquitted the soldiers because the soldiers were guilty of killing people, but they were being harassed. The crowd was there to try to get the soldiers to kill people. They were calling them names and yelling at them, the soldiers definitely had a right to fire. I think that Adams refused payment for his legal services after the case was over because he wanted to do it because it was the right thing to do and not because of money. I think he probably also wanted to show everybody else that he wasn’t just doing it for the money that he actually believed that the soldiers were innocent.
1. I personally thought they portrayed the characters of John and Abigail Adams really well because they didn’t just shoot the film Abigail a housewife with had no say at all, she always put in her word and told John her feelings, which is a lot. Also, you expect John, being the second president of the United States, being a patriot with the rest of the colonists, but really he was defending British soldiers, which I never knew he did until I saw the movie.
2. Personally, I think it is the colonists fault for the Boston Massacre. When we had to tweet, I was a colonist, but I kept tweeting like a Loyalist because I felt that the colonists were antagonizing the British soldiers to the breaking point of acting out and getting violent. Personally, when you’re just standing there and you have bats being thrown at you, snow and oyster shells etc as well it tends to get on your nerves and makes you want to act out in a horrible way. This could have all been avoided, but there is always the victim and there is always the perpetrator, and in this case the perpetrators were the colonists but they ended up being the victim because they walked away with 5 deaths.
3. Yes, because they didn’t mean to kill anyone, he was knocked on the head and fell and his musket went off. I feel that it was the right call to acquit the soldiers because they didn’t maliciously act out of that way to start shooting the colonists. They didn’t have that mind set; they were just doing their jobs. I also feel that John didn’t take the pay because it’s not like it was just an ordinary court case, it was a colonists man defending the British soldiers and winning, and it just showed that the colonists act out in horrible ways, and it’s not just the British.
1. I really loved the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams. Abigail’s criticisms of Johns court transcript helped make them seem human and was kind of funny. I thought it was really interesting to see John Adams struggle to give the soldiers a fair trial in such a tough situation.
2. In my opinion, the dock workers and rabble rousers like Samuel Adams were more to blame for the Boston Massacre. The soldiers, who were more than likely to not be too happy about being stationed in the cold, were being harassed. One of them was even hit with a club. Despite the fact that the soldiers had loaded weapons, the experience of being harassed and threatened by a large, resentful crowd must have been terrifying. When the crowd surrounded the soldiers and started jeering at them and daring them to fire, it’s no wonder that one of the soldiers fired his gone. Whether it was out of mistake or self defense is debatable. Either way, bloodshed was inevitable in that given situation.
3. I definitely think the court made the right decision by acquitting the soldiers. I believe this because the killing was not done out of malice. The soldiers were victims of the circumstances, and should not have been charged with murder. The reason that Adams refused payment for his legal services was because he wanted to maintain his reputation for impartiality. If he had accepted payment, he would have been viewed as favoring the British, or even as a Loyalist.
1) Its really very hard to say whether or not the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams in this movie were realistic. I have nothing to compare this movie to and I don’t know much about what either person was like in real life other than the facts of what they achieved later on in their lives. Based on the little I know about John Adams, I must say that the movie did a reasonably decent job of embodying who he was in real life. In the movie he seemed humble; though he supported the cause of the colonists, he tried to stay out of the public eye and did not voice his opinions in favor of either side both in court and out of it (like when the mob came to his doorstep). The portrayal of Abigail also seemed to be reasonably accurate based on my knowledge of what she was like in reality. In the movie she was smart and supportive, backing up John in his controversial decision to defend the soldiers and helping revise his closing speech for the trial. As for whether or not these characters seemed to be real people or just 200 year old historical figures, I would have to say they seem realistic since this was presented as a movie that focused on the feelings of the characters rather than a documentary focused on the facts of the figures.
2) I think the Boston Massacre is the fault of the British monarchy. Not because it was that country’s soldiers who fired on the seemingly innocent crowd but because this entity caused there to be a climate of extreme hostilities and tension in the area due to repeated taxation against the will of the people as well as several other harsh acts aimed at crushing the will of the colonists.
3) If all the testimonies given are true then yes the court was absolutely correct in acquitting the soldiers. The soldiers had acted in self defense against the vicious rioters who, if permitted to go much further, would have killed the soldiers in their anger. It would be a failure of the system to execute these innocent men for an act they were just in doing. I think Adams refused payment for his services because, like I said, he was very humble. He felt he was doing the right thing. He knew it was his duty as a fellow human being to do everything in his power to keep the soldiers from being executed for the wrong reasons or for an incorrect conviction on a crime they didn’t really commit.
1. From the movie I felt that John Adams and his wife were portrayed as real people, not just historical figures. You could see this in a few scenes like how when Abigail was telling John to use simpler language in his defense. It really showed that he was a frustrated person trying to do his best and his wife was there to help him as much as she could. In other parts, like when he was upset and yelled at his son to stop making noise showed that he was real because he was taking out his frustration the way many people do when they are upset, yelling about small things that don’t really bother them enough to get that much rage out of a person.
2. If everything said at the trail is true I would blame the crowd and dock workers for the Boston Massacre. When a soldier id ordered to stand at his post and people are throwing ice and sharp clams at them and some are making threatening gestures with their clubs, I think that any person would be scared for their life. Also they said that the first gunshot was a misfire and because of that accident the people began to attack so then the soldiers fired, to protect themselves.
3. I think that the court was partially right in acquitting them. What I would have had them do would’ve been to declare the men not guilty but arrange for them to be moved either to another colony or maybe back to England. I don’t think the soldiers would be very safe in Massachusetts, and definitely not in Boston. I think that Adams refused pay because he wanted to prove to himself that he was a man of the law. These men were innocent and he proved it and saved their lives. Also I think he realized that they needed the money more than he did.
1. I thought the portrayal of John and Abigail Adams were very accurate for a historical movie. I don’t watch those types of movies very often so I didn’t have that much to compare it too, but they didn’t seem to act snobby and like an iconic historical figure that they are portrayed as in history books. They actually seemed to be like normal people, which is exactly what they are behind the wigs and high power that they have. They have families and problems and issues just like regular people have, so the movie did an excellent job portraying this.
2. I don’t think that there is one person or group that you could point fingers at for the blame of the Boston Massacre. I’d have to say that the dock workers and the British soldiers were both to blame for this. The dock workers were to blame because they were angering the British soldiers on purpose which just caused more drama then was needed. They would yell out to the soldiers to go back to England, and they would throw rocks and objects at them. On the other hand, the British soldiers didn’t even do anything to stop what they were forced to do. They just followed orders and would shoot and fight whenever they were forced too, and when they would hear the word “fire” so even if they didn’t know that the voice was from their commander, they would still shoot and cause conflict.
3. I think that the court’s decision to acquit the soldiers was the right choice. They shouldn’t have been found guilty and I’m glad they didn’t. It wasn’t the British soldier’s fault that they didn’t know who was calling the “fire” commands. It was the right decision to make sure that they didn’t get killed on purpose because there were other people that were killed on accident. I’m glad that they didn’t put innocent men guilty. I think that Adams refused to accept the payment because he didn’t want to get economically involved with the British, and I think that it would have given people the wrong idea of who’s side he was on.
1. I really enjoyed the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams. I felt like they definitely seemed like real people, although I’m not sure how accurate the personalities were as opposed to how they actually behaved. I like how the relationship between John and Abigail was portrayed because it was realistic; they had fights, he bounced ideas off of her, they worried about each other. It was nice to think of John Adams as more human and honestly I had never even given a though to Abigail. She was just kind of a name that went along with his. I liked seeing how she would often influence him and would try to subtly direct some of his actions in the hopes that he would be more successful that way.
2. Really the blame for the Boston Massacre doesn’t seem to lie in any one place, although this movie portrayed it as more the fault of the dock workers. True, the British had done some things to upset the colonists, but that really wasn’t the fault of the British soldiers, they were just doing their duty. If Preston really didn’t give the command to fire, then the blame lies mainly with the colonists and anyone who stirred them up, such as Samuel Adams. The British were not the ones at fault in this case.
3. I think that the court was perfectly right in acquitting soldiers because the accused should be taken as innocent until proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. John Adams caught some of the protestors in lies and got the truth out of a few others, casting doubt on whether Preston actually ordered his men to fire and revealed that colonists started the violence first with antagonistic behaviors such as throwing snowballs and wielding clubs. I think that John Adams may have not taken the money because then people would think that he only took the case for the money. Or perhaps he felt that protecting the law and defending people was worth it without the reward.
1. For the most part, I liked the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams. John seemed very realistic with real emotions and reactions. He wasn’t shown to be a perfect historical figure. He was just a guy. Abigail was cool and I liked her character, and this problem may not exist if you watch the whole show, but I felt like she was unrealistically calm. She was John’s conscious and nothing else. It was kind of sad.
2. In situations like this, there is no one group at fault. The people of Boston were angry, and their anger was mostly justified. There were rabble-rousers like Samuel Adams who incited the crowd. The soldiers were afraid and felt the need to defend themselves. The only person I think isn’t at fault—at least based on the information we got from the video—was the governor. He has to protect and keep control of his city or there would be ANARCHY! Anarchy is not fun. Of course, there was still anarchy but that’s beside the point. The governor was only one person; he can’t prevent every potential riot from boiling over.
3. I think that the court’s decision to acquit the soldiers was right. The soldiers were acting in self-defense. Punishing them for premeditated murder would not be just. The prosecuting lawyer did argue that their weapons were loaded; therefore, they were planning on shooting to kill. Well, they’re soldiers, and they were running to help a comrade who was being harassed by an ever-growing mob. Of course they’re going to load their weapons. To do otherwise would be stupid.
Forgot to answer the second part of question three…
I think that John Adams refused to accept payment for defending the soldiers for two main reasons. First, he believed that he was doing the right thing by defending them and wanted to prove that hegenuinely believed in their innocence. Secondly, it was obvious that the soldiers didn’t have the money to pay him (after the case one of them approached him with a small bag of money, saying that it’s not much, but it was from all of them), and he didn’t want to take what little they had.
1. John Adams seemed a little bit idealistic, but he and Abigal could have been real people. In the series, he kept mentioning that he was ‘upholding the law’ and that got extremely annoying. I’m glad that the series actually got a fat john adams, that, again, made the series seem more realistic. One more thing is I like the way he handled his children. I could connect with that, rather than him being a perfect historical figure.
In my opinion, Samuel Adams and the rabble rousers were the cause of the riots. If not for them, the crowd wouldn’t have rebelled and tossed the clubs and ice at the British. The British were simply doing their job and acting in self-defense. They should have just shot into the air, but in the end they were defending themselves and demonstrating Britain’s power over the colonies. Samuel Adams single handedly stirred up passion inside of the colonists that probably wouldn’t have come out if not for him. He was the reason for the massacre.
3. Yes, I think the court’s decision to acquit the soldiers was the right one. The soldiers were harassed and acted in self-defense. Besides this, the colonists were taunting the British to shoot and badly injuring the guards. If the guards backed down, anarchy would overcome the colonies ending a big war. The guards were simply doing their jobs and defending Britain’s honour. As the series mentioned many times, Adams wasn’t defending the guards for money, he was defending them for justice. This was the reason why he wouldn’t accept payment for defending them. It was the right thing to do.
1. Yes, I did think John and Abigail Adams were portrayed as real people, I kept forgetting that John would one day lead the country. I felt the chemistry between the two actors (and even with their children) was really good, and helped to add to the realism. One moment I especially remember was when Abigail sat down to play with her son—I totally could see that happening in their daily lives. I really liked how they showed that John had flaws, like temper, because I think way too often our founding fathers are portrayed as perfect people who always knew what the right think was and were always on the side of good.
2. I think the blame is dispersed between the dock workers and rabble rousers like Samuel Adams. I think the soldiers held off as long as they could, but honestly I think they were scared of the crowd and fired in self-defense. I think people like Samuel Adams were exploiting the frustration that many of the lower class dock workers were feeling, and perhaps channeled that anger into a rage that even he couldn’t control. I think the whole situation, like many mob situations do, just spun out of control.
3. I do think the court ruled correctly in declaring the soldiers not guilty, because they were able to acknowledge that the soldiers were provoked. I think one of the main reasons that John Adams didn’t accept payment for his representations was that he didn’t want to be seen as being bribed or paid off by the British. I think he wanted to make sure that people understood that he wasn’t necessarily a loyalist, he just represented the soldiers because he felt they deserved a fair trial and he knew he could give that to them
If feel that the portrayal of both John and Abigail was very human. When we think, or read in our textbooks, about this figures in history, all we have is maybe an oil painting and laundry list of their accomplishments, or failures. Our books give us these monolithic images of people, people that are no more real to us then the any other story book character. Movie’s like this, while they have to stick to the important events, are able to bring them to life. The back and forth between characters, such as John and Abigail, give us a different version of them, then we receive in our books. We see John as incredibly smart but also abrasive man, and how he is counter balanced by his wife, who tries to keep him grounded. We see this when we she criticizes his speech, she tells him there are to many quotes, and that he “does not have to quote great men to prove he is” John is upset with this but also values his wife opinion and follows his advice.
2. Who is to blame for the massacre? Well, the rabble rousers did everything they possibly could to provoke the soldiers. The soldiers were the ones who shot the guns, that kid innocent people. The royal governor is the one who put the soldiers in their in the first place. So for the massacre both the rabble rousers and soldiers are responsible, but I don’t think that the shooting was intentional and they were only defending themselves. So, above everyone else, I blame the royal governor, it was he who was instituting the unpopular policies, and none of this would have happened if he hadn’t put the soldiers in the city, which would incite the anger of the rabble rousers.
3. Yes, I think based on the John Adams defense, the jury was absolutely correct in acquitting the soldiers. Because Adams was able to expose that there were differing accounts first hand accounts of what happened, from people who were in the crowd and standing right next to the soldiers the entire time. He proved that the crowd was harassing the soldiers and that their behavior was understandable and only in self defense. Im not sure why he refused the pay, maybe it was because he was only doing the case because no else would, not for the pay, this was not for personal gain.
1. I liked the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams. I believe that it does make them look like real people. In most historical movies, they overplay the male inferiority over the female. In this movie however, they make them as almost equals. Of course they can never be fully equal, but the woman does not go around making herself so much less than her husband. One example is that Abigail helps John by reading his closing statement and gives him feedback which he takes into consideration. They also showed them being more intimate with each other (and with family members) than is usually portrayed. They do not emphasize the male as the sole head of the house whom everyone listens to, tries to please, and does not speak to him unless spoken to. That is what I liked most about the portrayal of John and Abigail Adams
2. In my opinion, I think the colonists that were provoking the soldiers were to blame. The Soldiers were there on duty, they didn’t have much of a choice. They were not responding to the taunting because they weren’t supposed to unless they were defending themselves. The crowd in front of them got rowdy and began throwing things. These were not harmless; a club was thrown and it hit one of the soldiers. At this point their muskets were loaded and ready to fire if things got dangerous. As the soldier who got hit fell, his musket discharged and someone in the crowd yelled fire, not the colonel.
3. I think the court’s decision was right in acquitting the soldiers. They were technically innocent. In today’s terms we would call it 2nd degree murder which, as punishment, would involve some jail time. Back then however, killing was killing, and there was no alternative. It must have taken a lot for the jury to let these soldiers go, especially with the rest of the colonists breathing down their necks. Adams was a generally good man, so there is not much reason to why he didn’t accept the payment from the soldiers for his legal services. I think he believed that defending the soldiers was something he had to do because no one else would do it. I think he felt sort of obligated to do it, and did not want to get paid for something he did not take pride in doing in the first place.
1. I think the movie did a very good job of protraying John and Abigail Adams. It shows them as having a certain amount of political influence, but more than anything, it shows them as supportive of each other. The latter makes them seem more like real people, rather than just historical figures. The way the movies begins, John and Abigail seem like ordinary Bostonians who witnessed the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.
2. I think that the dock workers set off the chain of events that caused the Boston Massacre to happen, but I think the mob was the most responsible. They were the one’s who provoked the British soldiers into firing at the crowd. While people like Sam Adams may have stirred up the crowd, I think that the people of Boston were already angry enough to where they would have reacted the same without the influence of Sam Adams
3. I think the court was right in aquitting the soldiers because Adams was able to prove that the soldiers were provoked by the crowd, who was shouting at the soldiers and throwing rocks and clubs. Since the soldiers were clearly provoked, there is reason to believe that the soldiers fired in self- defense. I think that John Adams refused payment for his legal services because he still believed in the American cause. He didn’t defend the British to be loyal to the crown, but because he believed that they were innocent of the crime they were accused of committing.
I thought the movie made Abigail Adams and John Adams seem like real people. They showed emotion and not just prim proper behavior. John got mad at his son Charles and got stressed during his court cases. He had moral battles with himself when he was asked to represent the British even though they were in viewed negatively and the case would essentially make him un hirable. His wife could read him very well just like real married people and not just like old historical figures. I thought it was quite funny when John removed his wig and he made his kid take his boots off. It was like when your dad makes you go grab his keys or coat. The movie made them very realistic characters and more easy to relate to.
I think that the colonists were to blame for the Boston Massacre they harassed and threatened they British soldiers. If I were one of the British Soldiers I would have been extremely fearful too! You can’t blame them for their actions. Especially with all of the colonists making a ruckus about firing and shooting. Its no wonder the British Soldiers got confused and fired at the crowd. Also the crowd wasn’t armed and defenseless, they were armed and ready to cause harm to the soldiers. Fault rests with both parties. The colonists for threatening the British Soldiers, and the British Soldiers for firing.
3. The soldiers shouldn’t have been acquitted they shot civilians with out a solid reason for doing so. However, they shouldn’t have been sentenced to death either thats too extreme a punishment taking into account the circumstances. The British soldiers would have had to fire eventually and it was their job to guard their post. The civilians got in the way and knew what the outcome had to be in the end. The civilians should have been arrested for assault. I think John Adams didn’t accept payment because he knew that representing them was something they had to do and because they needed the money to “get out of dodge” and leave the colonies for their own safety.
1. I think the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams were nicely represented. They supported each other throughout the episode. Abigail gave her honest opinion to her husband when he asked her about the speech. She seemed quit intelligent for a woman back then. I think the characters were nicely put into scene because John still was a little harsh with the kids. For example: when the kids are doing too much noise, John just screamed at them. Abigail still took the place of the woman then and took care of the kids. But you could sense there was a family connection there. The acting was also very good which was a great change. Usually history movies don’t have the best actor picks.
2. I think the Boston Massacre was the fault of both soldiers and the dock workers. The dock workers should not have provoked the attack as they did and Thomas Hutchinson and his men should have left the dock workers completely alone not to mention they shouldn’t have shot anyone. I also think its a little odd that they all started shooting after. I mean sure they thought they heard someone yell it but they should have checked who did. I think they were maybe a little in the moment and maybe they thought they could away with it. The dock workers were idiots to ask them too just to see if they would.
3. I think it was wise not to kill the brits. There was no proof to attest the fact that they purposely did it. Killing innocent people would set an awful image on the colony. It would have be very wrong to do so. John Adams was a good man that believed in the law. He said he did not wished to get payed because what he was doing was just the right act for the law.
I thought that they did seem like real people because not all their lines and interactions were the important things they did for our country. He was interacting with their kids or actually they both were interacting with the kids and they had family moments. It wasn’t all historical so it made them seem more real and not just iconic figures. And it showed different people too not just them so it showed how people thought of their actions. And it showed them together and how they were married and cared about each other and how he cared about her opinion of what he does and needed her support to get through it.
I think that the rabble rousers, Sam Adams, had a major part to do with it. I don’t think that the soldiers should have reacted so soon or so harsh because that made the whole thing worse and escalated the whole aftermath. I think that it was just a really bad situation in general and that many things were taken out of hand and over exaggerated in those times just because of the political tension. I don’t think that guns should have been fired and that people should have died but it’s what happened so we can’t really change it.
I am glad that they were acquitted because I don’t think that after what happen they should be charged for murder and then face the consequences. I don’t think that he would take any payment for his legal services because he knew how little they were paid and the difference a little could do. And I think he truly believed that they were innocent and shouldn’t be blamed for everything that had happen. He didn’t mind working for them and being on that case because he truly believed in what he was fighting for even if that meant going against some of his own family.
1. Throughout the whole video, I kept thinking how realistic it seemed. They both acted just like normal people of the time and it was weird to think that the people of that time didn’t see him as a huge deal like we do now. After the initial shock of seeing Paul Giamatti not blue with orange hair, I thought he did an absolutely fantastic job. He showed real feelings during the trial and it was really convincing. Especially with Mr. Holmes, his words and facial expressions just seemed so real, not like he was trying to be some iconic figure. Just a man. Abigail was always there to sympathize with John and celebrate at the end of the trial. It was all quite impressive.
2. I don’t think any person or group in particular can be blamed for the Boston Massacre. Samuel Adams did stir up the crowd, but Thomas Hutchison did have the soldiers stationed there, and the soldiers did shoot, but the dock workers were temping them. They all played a part and displayed some sort of aggression. I don’t think the townspeople should of tempted the soldiers, but I do get that they didn’t like them being there. I also think it was wrong of the soldiers to shoot. The combination of all the wrong doings led to a terrible end result, but I believe everyone involved should share the blame equally.
3. I think the court’s decision in acquitting the soldiers was the right one. There wasn’t enough solid evidence to punish them. While I don’t think it was exactly necessary to shoot, if it was in self defense, it does change things a bit. Depending on whose perspective you looked at the massacre from, different people were at fault and because of that, I think the court was right to not punish the soldiers. As for John Adams not accepting the money, I think he thought that he was just doing what was right and didn’t need payment for it. His emotions showed so much passion for the case, I thought as though he was doing it for the love of it, not for the money.
1. I think that John and Abigail Adams seemed like real people. They didn’t act like they were trying to be people from two hundred years ago. Like when he was asking her opinion about what she thought of his paper, I feel like you wouldn’t generally expect a man to give his wife a paper to read and get her opinion on in this time period. They seemed to have a more modern relationship, one that we can relate to today. I think that they portrayed real people really well. They gave a personal account of the feelings that someone would go through in a situation like that.
2. I think it’s hard to say whose fault it was exactly. The British soldiers were just doing their jobs but they didn’t have to react to the taunting of the colonists. For the Royal governor, he shouldn’t have stationed soldiers there because there wasn’t any need for them. The dock workers were to blame because they were throwing things and taunting the soldiers. For the people like Samuel Adams who just tried to get the crowd angry because they were angry with the new taxes England was imposing on the colonists. If they weren’t causing so much trouble then it wouldn’t have been a problem that the soldiers were even there.
3. Yes I think that they were right in acquitting the soldiers because they were just there doing their jobs. It was the colonists who became rowdy and caused the whole thing to happen. Plus they seemed really dishonest during the trial. I was actually supposed to be tweeting from the point of view of the nationalists, but I found it hard not to pull for the soldiers. In the movie John Adams said that he was for the law. I think that this is why he didn’t want to get paid for the case. He wasn’t doing it for the money, clearly because taking on that case ran his practice into the ground. He was doing it because he believed that he laws needed to be upheld whether you’re a British soldier or a Boston colonist.
1. I loved how John and Abigail Adams were portrayed. They were so cute together! You imagine historical figures to act all stuffy and weird with each other. Like, the wife just quietly listening and obeying the husbands every command. Abigail and John did not have that relationship at all. Instead, Abigail and John had a working relationship. She acted like a good wife, helping him out of his coat and stuff, and he genuinely respected her. Her opinion actually mattered to him. When he is asking her about his closing argument, you can tell that he wants to hear her say that she likes it. Also, he takes what she thinks into account when he is revising it. Their relationship was very real and relatable. It’s exactly how successful relationships look nowadays. They laughed and worked together well and that made the movie much more real.
2. I’ll never know who was to blame for the Boston massacre because I wasn’t there. From what the movie was showing, it definitely looked like the dock workers and the rabble rousers were to blame. The British Soldiers really were just doing their jobs. IT sucks that that is their excuse because it reminds me a lot of XMen first class. All the Nazis excuses are that they were just following orders and Erik can’t stand that excuse. I get where he’s coming from but I still think the British Soldiers couldn’t do anything about their positions. They probably had families and stuff to feed and take care of. It’s all very confusing.
3. The court’s decision was definitely the right one. The movie made it seem like they were going to sentence them all to die and I was so relieved when I learned that they all got to live! Anyone can see why the decision was the right one, obviously the soldiers weren’t guilty! I think Adams didn’t accept payment because he realized how difficult the case would be to win and when he did end up winning he was so glad justice prevailed that he refused payment. IT was like a moral thing really. “the right thing to do”.
1.John and Abigail were definitely portrayed as realistic. They would constantly get annoyed with each other and argue, which most people still do today. It is interesting to see how people today can still relate with historical characters from 200 years ago. This movie did a good job of showing how John was a normal person who became irritated with his children when he was having a bad day, as people often do today. We all become aggravated with those close to us at some point in time. John also did a great job of showing how he really felt during the trial. Everything about his character was realistic.
2.There were a number of people to blame for the Boston Massacre. First of all, the workers who were throwing objects at the soldiers were frustrating and tempting the soldiers even more and they had already been annoyed to start with. Also, the workers shouldn’t have been telling the soldiers to fire. It could also be blamed on Thomas Hutchinson for sending the troops in the first place. If the soldiers weren’t there, the workers wouldn’t have been irritating them so much. On the other hand, even though the workers were being a pain and irritating the soldiers, the soldiers shouldn’t have shot, as this wasn’t the only solution.
3.I think acquitting the soldiers was the right thing to do, although they did shoot. There wasn’t enough evidence to prove that they did it on purpose. I think John didn’t take the money because he wasn’t interested in participating in the case for the money; he truly cared about representing his beliefs. Taking the money wouldn’t have made that big of a difference to him. He knew what he was doing was the right thing to do and he didn’t need anything in exchange.
1) I think that the portrayal of both these figures were outstanding. They made me want to take their side to sympathize with them. When John Adams was saying hello to his daughter, I thought it was really sweet and realistic and the way Abigail treated her husband when he walked through the door immediately gave me the sense that they were married. I was instantly pulled into the story and I almost forgot that they were portraying historical figures. It was very real.
2. In your personal opinion, who was to blame for the Boston Massacre? Were the dock workers more to blame than the British soldiers? Was the Royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson, to blame for stationing the soldiers there? Or was it rabble rousers like Samuel Adams who may have stirred up the crowd enough to get them to attack the soldiers?
I have to admit that when I read the part about the Boston Massacre in the textbook, I sided with the colonists because the tone and the way it was told made me sympathize with them. But then, when I saw this film, I felt horrible for the seemingly genuine soldiers. As I watched more and more, with the witness accounts and the smug, cocky, faces of the colonists, I feel like it was the dock workers fault. They were throwing things, daring them to fire and spitting insults. They seemed immediately like they were provoked. Even though the colonists didn’t agree with Great Britain at the time, it didn’t give them an excuse to take it out on the soldiers who weren’t even doing anything at the time. They were just men following orders. I don’t agree with it at all.
3. Yes. I may like that the colonists stood up for themselves, but I do not condone the fact that they were trying to provoke British soldiers who were just standing there as they have been ordered to. If it was without provocation I would have immediately sided with the colonists but if things were getting out of hand, even of its wrong, and they couldn’t take it anymore, I understand why they did it. I think John Adams refused payment perhaps because he knew that the dock workers were completely in the wrong and he was happy to get back at them for trying to hang innocent people. Maybe he just had a strong sense of justice and seeing them acquitted was enough.
1. It think that the Adams seemed like the average people simply because John had not come to his higher status yet. Sure he was an important and impartial lawyer, but that was no president of the United States. I did not see anything in Abigail that would suggest she was different than the average housewife at the time. I think the main difference between them and the other town’s people, was that they were the humble figureheads. John was sought after to represent the people due to his neutrality and “love” of the law.
2. I think the Boston massacre in particular was at the fault of the colonials or workers. In the big picture, it was the sentry or the British. This particular event was because of the workers because they provoked the sentry. Based on the movie, they had been throwing ice and shells and dared them to fire on the angry mob of men. But in the long run, it would not have happened if the British treated them properly and independently. They should have had representation and maybe voted on the allowance of sentries in the area. But massacres like this are what led to the future freedom and the Amurica.
3. I think that the court decision was correct. Based on the things said in court, the original shot was by accident. If I heard a shot I would probably start rioting, either if I was in the sentry or in the mob. Also, the sentry was very outnumbered and being harassed so they were sot of in they’re right to defend themselves with their muskets. I think Adams refused payment for principle and integrity. He was saving the boys life and he thought that if he wouldn’t do it, nobody would. Due to his own need to save these men, he gave them his legal services. It was not like a standard court case. He thought that them seeing another day since they were basically innocent was payment enough.
go tigers
1. I thought John and Abigail Adams were both portrayed really well. Everyone’s going to have their own interpretation of history, especially when there isn’t concrete evidence of an iconic figure’s mannerisms, but I thought it was believable. The two actors obviously work well together, and the way they interacted with their children seemed to fit for the 1700s. The language is different enough from present day that it feels authentic, but not so far removed that you can’t follow the thread of a normal conversation. Often times when I visualize people like the founding fathers – people who lived a long time ago that we’ve studied multiple times – I always imagine cardboard-like people without personalities. Watching this depiction of John and Abigail Adams, it made me realize that they were just ordinary people living in a volatile time in American history.
2. Personally, I think the blame for the Boston Massacre could be laid on multiple people, but there’s probably some merit in criticizing the crowd and the dock workers. We’ll never know, of course, not being there and having several biased records of the event, but the bystanders are always underestimated. Basically, anyone who was in the vicinity of the soldiers could have been responsible for what it escalated into. The rebels in the crowd shouldn’t have started throwing heavy, sharp objects at the British soldiers; it’s one thing to toss out insults, but another to swing a club. They caused the confusion that led to the soldiers firing, in addition to trying to sabotage the trial.
3. Yes, I think the jury was right to acquit the soldiers because it wasn’t clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were guilty. The evidence – all of it hearsay – pointed more towards the crazies in the crowd, in my opinion. This kind of trial also demonstrated that Americans weren’t completely turned against their mother country, even though tensions were running inexplicably high by this point. Adams didn’t accept pay for his part in the trial probably because he felt it was more of a public service, or maybe even an early pro-bono case. It reinforced the notion that just because John Adams was a colonist in America, he didn’t despise the British at large; he stood for upholding the law.
1. I didn’t really like the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams. They didn’t seem like authentic colonists to me. I don’t know what the director was aiming for, but it just didn’t hit the spot for me. I guess I just wasn’t expecting them to behave like normal people do today. John got angry when his son, Charrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrles, was playing by the fire; and after he left his house to see what was going on outside, he came back and like a protective father, said it was nothing, when actually there were shots fired and people lying dead. John did look like he lived over 200 years ago whenever he changed his wig. Abigail also acted as a normal wife would today. She was excited over John’s win on his case, she reviewed his court notes, and she played with her children. However I didn’t expect to see her present at the court. I guess I just thought it was a place for men only.
2. I think that everyone had a small part in the Boston Massacre, so the blame is split between multiple people. The dock workers shouldn’t have been throwing things such as snow balls, clubs, etc. Thomas Hutchinson’s act of stationing the soldiers there made the colonists feel threatened, which mounted the tensions and created some heat. However, I do think that rabble rousers like Samuel Adams could be blamed a bit more than the other people. Rabble rousers stirred the colonists’ feelings by yelling things at them to get them to start fighting with the soldiers. They also yelled at the soldiers to shoot if they dare, which did not help the situation at all. All this provocation caused someone to snap and start the attack.
3. I think that the court’s decision was right in acquitting the soldiers, because they were provoked. They didn’t start the fight. In my eyes, I think that it was self defense against the colonists. They wouldn’t just continue to stand there while things were being thrown at them. Preston didn’t give orders to fire, which counted for something. I think that Adams refused payment because he believed that accused people deserved a proper defense. He probably felt that no one else would take the case, so he didn’t think he deserved the payment, because he felt he was obliged to take this case.
I thought the part of John and Abigail were both played very well. I don’t know much about the real john or Abigail so I have nothing to base my opinion off of. They seemed very real to me, with emotions and problems just like everyone else. John’s emotions were shown very well throughout the movie in many scenes, a good example being when he hugs and kisses and laughs with his wife after he won the case. I don’t think it is fair to blame any one person/ group for the events that happened the March morning in 1770. But if I was to blame one main group it would be the dock workers. Who had clubs and other threatening objects with them. They also (according to the movie) were urging on the young guards, and throwing things at them. There was pushing and shoving along with many insults. According to his testimony, the guard that fired the first shot hadn’t even shot at all, but was beat with a club and fell causing his musket to discharge. His is clearly the fault of the dockworkers for making an aggressive move at the guard. I am undecided if the jury made the right decision. There was so much evidence presented by John to prove the men’s innocence that is hard to think they did anything wrong. But the thing that still bothers me is that the entire squad fired into the crowd, even with their commanding officer standing in front of them, and no orders to fire. This was one of the most disciplined and sophisticated armies at the time, so unless the soldiers were not trained well it is hard to imagine them shooting without a command unless they were doing it maliciously. Still most of the men were very young on the squad, and I believe there innocence.
I think that the characters of John and Abigail Adams were portrayed pretty well. They definitely seemed like real people and not just actors playing a part. I think they did a good job showing that they lived relatively normal lives for their time period. I think the fact that they seemed like a real family living normal lives helped me relate and kept me more interested in the movie.
2. I don’t think that the Boston Massacre can be blamed on just one group of people. I think that there were definitely more than one contributing factor as to why this happened and one person or one event can’t be pinpointed because SO much goes into why it started. Basically, in the British had never been provoked it would have never happened, but by the same token, the British could have handled everything in a much calmer way.
3. I think the court was right acquitting the soldiers because there wasn’t enough evidence to believe anything. It was just someones personal story, really, which is not enough to base a whole future off of. Also, I think John Adams didn’t take the payment because he felt that he was doing something important and it was the right thing and taking the money would mean he was in it for other reasons. I think he really believed in what he was doing and wanted to prove that.
1. I think that John and Abigail were portrayed very well in the movie. They seemed like real people instead of the people we read and hear about in history. I think it was a combination of good acting and good writing that made it believable. John’s temper showed when he would yell at the kids but his caring side showed as well when he tried to convince the kids that everything was fine and wanted them to remain calm and not worry after the massacre. Abigail actually had a personality which definitely made it more interesting. She was very excited when she heard John had won the case and you could see how much they cared about each other.
2. I can’t decide who is most at fault for the Boston Massacre. Everyone did something wrong and it all just went downhill from there. The workers should never have started to instigate. They threw shells, ice etc at the soldiers and dared them to fire, not so smart. The soldiers could have handled to situation differently without resolving to violence that ended up killing people. It’s hard to blame the soldiers though because the colonists were getting way out of hand.
3. I believe the court did the right thing acquitting the soldiers because the colonists were really creating conflict and antagonized them. There was also so little evidence to even be sure at all. It would have been awful to put those men to death on such little evidence. John refused the pay because he felt that it was his duty to defend the soldiers. No one else wanted to defend the soldiers but John decided to. He did so because as I said before he felt it was his duty but we wanted to make sure there was a fair trial.
1. Yes, to me the film did a very good job at giving them lifelike qualities, displaying the negative sides and the positive sides. It showed Adams as shrewd, businesslike, and very impatient. He seemed very annoyed when criticized, especially when his wife tried to comment on his speech. He also showed lack of strength, letting himself get manipulated by his neighbours about something he did not want to do. For Abigail i think it was poorly shown that she was almost 12 years younger than he was. It did show her stubborn personality and her intellectual gifts, showing a bit of sensitivity to male dominance, such as when Adams bruskly closed the curtains and left when talking with her.
2. I definitely think that the fault lies in the rabble rousers such as Adams, because people don’t take action unless someone else is telling them or if they have a failsafe to blame. These people did not have the courage or the energy to stand up for themselves. They just wanted to survive. Secondly, since they had nothing to lose i understand why, but it also says that it the fault of the underprivileged for causing the death of so many.
3. I believe that the court was right in acquitting the soldiers because soldiers are hired to protect the populace from enemies, and if they are charged with murder at every attempt to protect themselves and others, then the army becomes a pointless state of affairs. Secondly, they were provoked and scared for their lives, which is understandable when a crowd of many times more than your soldiers is ready to attack you at any moment.
1) During the movie, I thought it was cool how John and Abigale acted just like normal people rather than hyped up figures. John wasn’t just the man torn between his country and his people, he was also a family man and that’s portrayed very well. They showed when he got stressed, and when he had to ask his wife for help. They even had some back and forth going like any other couple.
2) If I were to blame anyone, I would blame the workers who were taunting the soldiers and in some cases assaulting them. The workers just went to far when they were taunting the soldiers. I understand that they were upset with the British, and didn’t want the soldiers in their town. However things got out of hand, and people died because of it. if it had been a lawful assembly then the blame would have been on the soldiers who fired into a peaceful crowd, but when some people show up to make chaos, peaceful rallies fall apart.
3) I think the court did make the right decision. The soldiers didn’t fire without being provoked, and the workers were harassing them. John Adams said in court that “A sentry’s post is his castle, by English Law, and attacking it is an illegal act punishable by death.” the workers were attacking the sentry’s post, and they were still under English law. I think it was better for all that nobody was punished. Tensions were high and anything could push either side over the edge. John Adams didn’t accept payment probably because he felt he had done a good deed, and shouldn’t be paid for his actions, and that it was enough just to see the innocent soldiers go free. I also think that he didn’t want to be judged by people who thought he was a loyalist, and taking the money would reinforce that image of him.
I think the movie portrayed the Adams as very real people. They had depth, anger, and real emotions that don’t always jump out at you from the textbook. Since I’m supposed to put in an example I’m going to add one in now: when he gave the speech and added the quote, he looked over at his wife and sort of smirked because she told him not to add any quotes. The movie allowed a different perspective about the consequences of helping the British and the general people’s anger at how things were going down.
The fault lies between both the soldiers and the rabble rousers (what a fun word to type). I mean the rabbling public shouldn’t have been daring the soldiers to fire or beating them with chunks of ice and whatnot. I definitely don’t think it’s the captain’s fault, but those idiots who did fire shouldn’t have. The movie follows more of a pro loyalist stance on the issue since John Adams was defending it, but I think the soldiers shouldn’t have fired anyways. If I had to blame someone, I guess it would be the guy who stationed them there, because if he knows that it’s in the middle of town and there are super angry people, then he should’ve taken them out before people got killed.
The court was being legit when they acquitted the soldiers. John Adams put up a tremendous argument that made his case the obvious choice. It may have been partly the soldiers fault, but according to the law, they had every right to shoot. Plus that one dunderhead beer guy kept on lying. I think John Adams didn’t accept payment because he was already being booed for helping the British and he might have wanted to show that it was actually for the justice and they weren’t bribing him. He didn’t want to look like he was being sold.
1. I thought that the portrayals of John Adams and Abigail Adams were breathtaking. Paul Giamatti is a great actor in all of his work and Laura Linney is really good in this miniseries. I liked that they chose not to present Adams like other presidents are so often presented; predictable and one-sided with good old-fashioned “American values”. They instead chose to display Adams with all of his flaws; particularly his vanity, which was shown when Adams asked Abigail to look over his argument. Abigail told him that he “did not need to quote great men to show that he was one.”
2. I think that the blame for the Boston Massacre should be spread around. The soldiers were attacked with non-lethal force and responded with lethal force, which is inexcusable. Hutchinson made a grievous error in stationing the soldiers there. The dock workers were to blame because they pushed the soldiers to their breaking point, even going so far as to dare the soldiers to fire, but I don’t think they deserve as much blame as rabble rousers like Samuel Adams, who I think played a huge part in the violent direction that the energy of the mobs was taking.
3. I think that the court made the right decision in acquitting the soldiers. There was equal blame to be put on both sides and the soldiers fired in self-defense, so it would have been unfair to convict them of murder. I was happy that the court was able to make an unbiased decision. I think that the reason Adams didn’t accept payment for his services was because this was a case he was passionate about and he felt he was only doing his civic duty by representing the soldiers. I think that he would have felt conniving if he had taken money from the soldiers.
1. I think that the film did a very good job in terms of how John and Abigail Adams were represented. They seemed like actual people, rather than famous figures. When I typically think of John Adams, I tend to associate his name with a lifeless portrait. This documentary did an excellent job showing that he went through everyday matters in addition to the famous events that he was involved in. Segments showing John and Abigail in their home particularly highlighted their status as real life people, along with scenes involving discussion between John and his cousin Samuel Adams.
2. I believe that the person most at fault for the Boston Massacre was whoever stationed the troops in Boston. There is some debate over whether it was the royal governor Thomas Hutchinson or colonial secretary Lord Hillsborough, who was in charge of monitoring the colonies affairs. Although neither side should have used violence, the confrontation never would have even happened if the British troops had not been present. There was significant unrest in Boston in the early 1770s, so sending troops was reasonable. However, this do not justify why they were consistently on the street patrolling. It seems unlikely that there would be a major event that would require the immediate intervention of British troops. Instead, they could have been quartered in a specific location and been prepared to respond to certain situations. Individual soldiers simply became easy targets for dissenters, as Hugh White was in this instance.
3. I think that the court’s acquittal of the British soldiers was the correct verdict. It would have been incredibly unjust to convict people of manslaughter when their own lives were being threatened. There was key evidence presented to the court that a dangerous mob was involved, and that it was a serious menace to the troops. As a result, they acted in self-defense. However, I believe that the soldiers were not punished sufficiently. Although capital punishment would have been excessive, the branding of thumbs or no consequences whatsoever seem to be too lenient of punishments. Jail time would have been more just, but corresponding charges would have had to be made in order for it to be fair. John Adams declining payment for his services showed his true motives in the case. He was not interested in having the British soldiers as his clients, but rather he was solely focused on providing them a fair trial.
1. I think that John Adams and Abigail Adams were well portrayed to fit the timeframe. The hats and wigs that John Adams wore were typical of the time. Their clothing were much like what I would picture a colonist wear. Also, they were portrayed as a typical married couple like today, with some disagreements and arguments between each other. They seemed more realistic than the iconic figures history makes them seem to be.
2. I think that the colonists should be to blame for the Boston Massacre. Thomas Hutchinson could hold part of the blame because if he hadn’t dropped off the troops there, noting would have happened in the first place. However, the rowdiness of the colonists is what caused it. If they hadn’t thrown oyster clams, clubs, sticks, snowballs and ice at the Redcoats, it would have been peaceful. Then they took it too far: they started to dare them to shoot into the crowd, asking for death to come to them. The patriots did a nice job coving the blame by blaming it on Captain Preston to try to get people to turn on the British, but John Adams wit proved that this wasn’t true. Overall it could have been an easily prevented event.
3. I think that the court’s decision in acquitting the soldiers was the right one. They did murder a bunch of seemingly innocent people, but they were provoked with a good reason. A soldier is trained to shoot when they hear their captain yell “fire”. It would be very easy to confuse the captain’s voice with any other man’s voice. I don’t blame the soldiers, if I was one of them, I probably would have shot too. I think John Adams didn’t accept his pay because I think he has a mindset that justice should not be something that should be paid for, it should always be there regardless of actions and money.
1. Obviously, i was not around to have known John and Abigail Adams. In the movie however, i found the characters to be quite relatable to people i know today. That is what I think the movie wanted to portray, a realistic relationship, the mundanity of everyday life in important and somewhat famous figures. An example of this mundanity would be how Abigail read over john’s court speeches and how she was so committed to spending time with her children and teaching them. It was very maternal and relatable to an every day mother. Another quite notable portrayal was that these characters had flaws in their mundane lives; with family, jobs, and relationships
2. In my personal opinion, it was the colonists fault for the Boston Massacre. I kept feeling that the colonists were instigating the British soldiers by antagonizing them. Take for example me throwing food at my sisters. This has happened. For the most part, they get pretty mad and retaliate. I think the same goes for the British having bats and snow and oysters and etc. thrown at you. It must be kind of irritating and maybe painful– a little. I think though, that the colonists got karma’s acts because in the end, they had 5 mortalities. Maybe they got what they deserved?
3. I think that the court’s decision was pretty spot on. Acquitting the soldiers was probably the best thing to do in that situation. I am not so sure however, that there was enough substantial evidence to support their claims and to prove their point past a reasonable doubt. I think, also, that John believed in something. When a man believes in something, he will stick up for it simply because he believes in it. I think that is why John didn’t take the money. It wasn’t about the money, it was about his belief– money can’t change that.
1. I’m not sure if I liked the portrayal of the characters only because I don’t know about John Adams personality. While his wife was very submissive, she spoke out a lot to her husband and I’m not sure how a man would react to that. I loved the acting overall they did a very good job, I’m just not sure if their portrayal was historically accurate. At one point though, John Adams is silent in a conversation and his wife answers for him, which I’m not sure would go over very well with John but he really didn’t seem to mind. Once again I’m not saying they didn’t play it right, I just am ignorant to the behaviors of women at that time period.
2. For all of my history-learning life I was always on the side of the colonists in respects to the Boston massacre. That is what we were taught in elementary school “Red coats were bad. We won independence.” After watching this video my views have completely changed. If this show was completely historically accurate, then I am 100% on the side of the red coats. They won the trial, and from the looks of it, they deserved to win. They didn’t do anything wrong and it portrayed the colonists as sly, nasty people. If this video was accurate I can honestly say that I would fend for the Red coats life in this situation.
3. As stated in the previous answer, I do believe that the Red Coats should have been acquitted. It was the right thing to do and everybody knew it. I honestly don’t know why John Adams didn’t accept the money but my best guess would be because he felt that what he had done was truly the right thing to do, and so he did not want to get paid for following his beliefs.
I liked how HBO portrayed John and Abigail Adams because it didn’t make them seem like superstars–big iconic historical figures. Most great historical weren’t all that popular during their actual lifetime, and I think HBO did a great job of making it like this. They came across as an ordinary couple, and John wasn’t portrayed as a perfect, good-looking, strong guy who could do no wrong; he was feisty, loved by few (at least in this episode), and by no means a big STUD.
I think the British soldiers definitely deserve the blame for the Boston massacre. People can say the governor that stationed them, but I disagree. As far as I’m concerned, a person with the power to station troops can put them wherever he/she pleases as long as they’re not infringing upon peoples’ daily lives. Guys like Sam Adams can’t be blamed either because they’re allowed their freedom of speech, and they were exercising it! Sure, they stirred the pot, but it was the British soldiers’ fault for listening and then snapping. They should have known better.
The court’s decision to acquit the redcoats was the right one because it had all of the evidence in its favor, and from a legal, unbiased standpoint it was the right move. The court was right to not just give in to all of the pressure on them because of everyone’s hatred of the redcoats. We wanted a new country of our own, and the justice system lays down the foundation for a new country. Having a corrupt justice system that gave in to popular demand would not have been a good way to begin the creation of our nation with! I think Adams refused his payment at the end of the whole ordeal because he felt it was his moral duty to ensure that justice was upheld–not just a way to make money.
What did you think of the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams? Did they seem like real people as opposed to iconic historical figures who lived over 200+ yrs ago? Specific examples.
Well the portrayal for me I thought Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney(that looked liked her at least) they played well. Paul and Laura are both good actors but to me it was really hard to look at Paul and not think Big Fat Liar, Big Mama’s House, The Hangover Pt 2 and to take him seriously as playing an historical figure like John Adams himself. I think that that though in certain scenes I felt like they were just real people but during the trial I really felt John Adams was John Adams. And Laura Linney didn’t really seem to me like an historical figure.
2. In your personal opinion, who was to blame for the Boston Massacre? Were the dock workers more to blame than the British soldiers? Was the Royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson, to blame for stationing the soldiers there? Or was it rabble rousers like Samuel Adams who may have stirred up the crowd enough to get them to attack the soldiers?
I think the British were more so blame than the dock workers. I think Thomas Hutchinson was responsible for stationing the soldiers, however I think like anyone else would be he was overwhelmed and I think in a way was pressured to something about it being he was governor. I’m sure he knew the repercussions and costs he was going to have to face. So when different people are telling you what you should do it can be hard to take in.
3. Was the court’s decision the right one in acquitting the soldiers? Why or why not? Also, why do you think Adams refused payment for his legal services after the case was over?
I think decision was right for acquitting the soldiers. I feel that it was job that they were told to do and in a way I feel that the Americans provoked them. I think Adams refused to take the payment because although he felt everyone should get a fair chance when it came to defense, he know that he would be criticize, and perhaps risking his life and his family but I think because of his morals and values he didn’t take the money.
1.) I think that John Adams and Abigail Adams were well portrayed characters in the show. For example, as a studier of history, I would expect to see political elites taking the leadership role in early Boston, however, in this case scenario you can cleary see the Adams family blending with the common class of people. The Adams family consisted of one daughter (or two?) and one son. Each was an important aspect to the family. An interesing dynamic I noticed was the contrast of modern day families compared to the Colonial families. The father of the family was the leader, with little to no acception otherwise and he directed the actions of his children on a strict scale, at one point I noticed John Adams ask his son to “come forth and remove my shoes”. The demanding attitude of Colonial fathers shocked me at first, but I later realized this was the way it was at the time. Over all, I think that John and Abigail Adams were portrayed well as Colonial characters.
2.) I think that the Boston massacre was completely brought on by the Colonists. They had instegated violence since the premire residing of British soilders on American soil. The Colonists may not have deserved violence, but they sure had something coming for them. They pushed the British soilders to their breaking point, and although had no intention to shoot, they shot and killed 5 people. I think that it was the people rousing the soilders that were pressuring them into using force, the British at the time had a right to quarter soilders because it was officially a British Colony and we hadn’t yet gained our indepence.
3.) I think that the court did the right thing by aquiting the charged soilders. The only think I thought was improper was the begginng attitude towards the soilders walking into the courtroom, from what I could tell, it definantly was a majority consensous that they were wanted to be put to death. But the evidence and testimonys pointed to the instigation of the Colonials. I think Adams refused to accept payment because he believed he was doing the right thing and didnt want to get paid for what he classified as justice.
1. I, personally, was quite pleased with the portrayals of John and Abigail Adams. They both show human emotions and (for John at least) human fallacy (Abigail points out, for example, that he need not use the words of great men to prove that he is one, implying that John has something of an ego problem). As others have stated, it is much more realistic than most other historical films with two-dimensional, coldly factual portrayals of historical figures.
2. The blame for the incident can’t be placed wholly upon one person or group. The British soldiers were posted in the colonies at orders, not by choice, but made poor choices in reacting to the rioting. The royal governor had posted the soldiers in what he must have felt was the best decision at the time, doing his job. It could be said, then, that the majority of the blame could rest with the rabble rousers like Samuel Adams. The colonists already had pent-up frustration from British laws and taxes, and this group decided to manipulate these feelings and convince the rope workers and others to vent their anger on the people they viewed as representatives of their mother nation’s oppressive attitude toward the colonies: the British soldiers (“CLEAN MY ****-BUCKET, LOBSTERS!”).
3. Although I was Tweeting for the colonists, the acquittal of the soldiers was just and fair. Yes, they killed five people. But, they were being provoked beyond the patience of any man, and having various insults and orders and other nonsense being shouted at them from every which way, thereby confusing them. The mob enticed them to shoot, and they did so in self defense. Had they not shot and dispersed the crowd, it’s very possible that the soldiers themselves may have been killed by the angry colonists.
1. John and Abigail Adams, as portrayed in the movie seemed like they were people just like anyone else at the time. Although they were quite extraordinary people, they were still just people who had problems just like anyone else. When John Adams was at trial, and several times when he was at home, they showed him stressing out about how he was going to present his case and what he was going to say in court, very much like any other person would. This humanized him a great deal as compared to what many people may have perceived him as in the past. Another instance was when he had to choose between the sons of liberty and the British government. He was torn between which cause he really supported and he had much difficulty making a decision.
2. I think that both the dock workers and the soldiers were to blame for the Boston Massacre. The dock workers shouldn’t have provoked armed men to fire into a crowd, but the soldiers knew that any shot fired into the crowd would be lethal and they decided to shoot anyway. I don’t think that anyone other than the mob or the soldiers was really to blame for the massacre, even though they could have been the reason that the two groups were there in the first place, they had nothing to do with the actions of the individuals present.
3. I think that some of the soldiers did deserve to be acquitted including the captain, however some of them clearly fired without orders from their officer and killed 5 people. I think that those who fired should have been punished. I think that John Adams didn’t accept payment because he did the case for moral reasons and not as a job, plus the colonists wouldn’t have been pleased to see John Adams profit from this.
1. I think John Adams and Abigail Adams seemed like real people from their time period. They both seemed like a real couple. For example, when John got back from the court hearing it seemed like Abigail was seriously interested in what the verdict was and when it was positives she seemed genuinely happy, like she was really happy it turned out well for him. Also, the movie really portrayed them as a normal family like they were back then. They lived in a normal house, the children had normal toys and Abigail treated her husband like any other wife did. Also when the actor was portraying some of the more famous things that John Adams had done he didn’t overplay the part like John Adams new that he was doing something important in history. He played Adams like he wasn’t all sure what he was doing at all
2. I think the people around the soldiers were more to blame than the soldiers themselves. From the accounts that seemed truthful in the courtroom in the movie it seemed like the boisterous crowd were stirring up all the commotion rather than the soldiers. Also, the command to shoot from the soldiers was not from the head of their troop rather a person standing behind them. This leads me to believe that the deaths of the innocent people wasn’t all their faults but partly the fault of the situation the towns people put themselves in which was basically a mob bothering a few soldiers.
3. I think the court made the right decision acquitting the soldiers rather than charging them for murder especially because of the evidence given in their favor. It seemed that the court couldn’t make the decision against them because the people who spoke for them seemed to speak true. Also I think John Adam’s proof and argument that the person who yelled fire was not indeed their captain but a bystander by the troops was what really set the court on the soldiers side.
(Sorry I didn’t get this done I wasn’t here for most of fourth hour on Tuesday therefore I didn’t hear the announcement)