Professor Joanne Freeman unravels her plan for her class to make them be aware of the how the American Revolution came about but to get passed most but not all of the dates and facts of the war. Freeman explains that the American Revolution entailed some remarkable transformations like, converting British colonists into American revolutionaries. This lecture examines the American Revolution from a broad perspective. The best part about her lecture is that she breaks it down into five easy steps to understand, and for her being a professor at Yale she probably is one of the top favorite teachers just because of how easy she breaks her lectures down. Freeman relates herself to one of the Founders, John Adams, because he wasn’t up to the status quo of every other Founder as she states it. John was humorous…
John Adams was the only lawyer in Boston to take on the defense case of the British troops for the Boston Massacre. Adams agrees to take on the case, despite its unpopularity, because he believes that all men were entitled to a fair trial and deserved equal justice. He also has a position in Boston’s legislature as motivation, which is not shown in the film. We don’t get to see the rest of the defense team in the docudrama either; Josiah Quincy is left out. All accused men receive their own individual trial. All but two soldiers are acquitted; Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy are charged with manslaughter. Adams wins the case for his client and is elected to a higher position in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.…
The Boston massacre was the first battle of the american revolution. Paul Revere wanted to get more people to be on their side so that they could go to war with Britain to gain their freedom. So that they didn’t have to by the tea that went along with the tea act passed by parliament.…
On March 5, 1770, British soldiers were badgered to the point of outrage by a small group of boys (Wheeler and Becker, 75). The soldiers eventually retaliated at the group and the church bells started ringing alarming the town that a fire had broken out only leading the numbers in the crowd to increase (Wheeler and Becker, 75). Captain Thomas Preston and his sentry were called to the scene to assist. However, their attempts to redirect the crowd were unsuccessful. It is at this point that a musket was fired and the situation continued to escalate leaving some dead and others wounded (Wheeler and Becker, 75). Was Captain Thomas Preston guilty of murder by ordering his soldiers to fire? Or was he innocent and the soldiers fired out of provocation and their own volition?…
His doctor, Doctor Jefferies, later said that Carr did not blame the soldier who shot him. Carr was surprised that they did not shoot sooner. His ‘deathbed testimony’ was presented to court by Dr. Jefferies as follows, with Jeffries repeating what Carr said to him. “Prosecutor- Were the soldiers greatly abused? Jefferies- Yes, they were. Prosecutor- Would they have been hurt if they had not fired? Jefferies- Yes. Prosecutor- So they fired in self-defense? Jefferies- Yes, and he did not blame whoever it was that hit him.” This testimony was believed due to the fact that the jury did not think a dying man or his doctor would lie (Boston). This short excerpt from a newspaper article about the Boston massacre supports Carr’s testimony about the soldiers being harassed, “The noise brought people together; and John Hicks, a young lad, coming up, knocked the soldier down but let him get up again; and more lads gathering, drove them back to the barrack where the boys stood some time as it were to keep them in (Boston Massacre Historical).” Carr’s words let the soldier that shot him go free and spread unrest among the colonists. Samuel Adams took…
We had been continuously arguing about his involvement with the Boston Committee and I even contemplated leaving him. By the time I awoke on the morning of April 18th, Paul was long gone. I carried on with my usual activities while I imagined Paul somewhere out riding with Dr. Warren. When he didn’t show up for dinner, I was actually kind of relieved that I would not have to deal with another fight erupting. But at 11pm, I started to get worried and by the morning I was packing up our most important belongings to flee out of Boston. That morning I heard tales of 3 men riding through the night to warn of the British’s arrival, little did I know that Paul was one of them. Paul, along with William Dawes and Samuel Prescott started their journey to Lexington at 11 pm on April 18th 1775, upon instructions from Dr. Warren. Paul was instructed to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of approaching British ships. As he rode through Charlestown, making sure his warning system was in play. The previous weekend he had arranged for two lanterns to be hung from the bell tower of Christ Church in Boston as a warning that British were arriving by sea rather than land. With everything going as planned, at midnight Paul rode through Lexington, while going door to door warning the country-side. Eventually he ended up at the house Hancock and Adams were staying at. This is the part where…
His doctor, Doctor Jefferies, said that Carr did not blame the soldier who shot him. Carr was surprised that they did not shoot sooner. His ‘deathbed testimony’ was presented to court by Dr. Jefferies as follows. With Jeffries repeating what Carr said to him. “Prosecutor- Were the soldiers greatly abused? Jefferies- Yes, they were. Prosecutor- Would they have been hurt if they had not fired? Jefferies- Yes. Prosecutor- So they fired in self-defense? Jefferies- Yes, and he did not blame whoever it was that hit him.” This testimony was believed due to the fact that the jury did not think a dying man or his doctor would lie(Boston). This short excerpt from a newspaper article about the Boston massacre supports Carr’s testimony abiut the soldiers being harassed, “The noise brought people together; and John Hicks, a young lad, coming up, knocked the soldier down but let him get up again; and more lads gathering, drove them back to the barrack where the boys stood some time as it were to keep them in (Boston Massacre Historical).” Carr’s words let the soldier that shot him go free and spread unrest among the colonists. Samuel Adams took…
Ellis uses six significant events in the early years of the republic that involve eight important figures to support his thesis. First, he describes the Hamilton and Burr duel and the history behind it. The story of the duel was a way for Ellis to discuss the importance of character and honor to the founding generation. The next piece of evidence Ellis used was the secret dinner held by Thomas Jefferson in order for James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to reach a compromise. Hamilton wanted support for his Assumption Bill and Madison wanted the national capitol to be closer to the south. Ellis suggests that Jefferson attempted to overemphasize his importance through his account. Ellis also indicates an expanding divide within the country and the need for a wise mediator in order to reach a compromise. Jefferson’s account recognizes the fear in all three of them. This…
When critiquing this movie I have to first begin with was it historically accurate, overall the film was quite accurate there were a few liberties taken. The reason for historical inaccuracies in 1776, comes from the fact that the Congress was held in secrecy and there are no contemporary records on the debate over the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the movie created the narrative based on later accounts and educated guesses, the need to invent scenes and dialogue as needed for storytelling purposes really does not take away from the overall effect of the film. However, from my own general knowledge of this period of history I do see that some of the dialogue was taken from sources written, years or often even decades later, by the actual people involved, and just rearranged for dramatic effect. While we all do know that the signers did not burst into song and sing about eggs and the Lees of Virginia and setting the sing parts aside the unique and odd things discussed may seem inaccurate yet are completely true. Some that I noticed of the top of head are that Adams did write to his wife Abigail daily and often asked each other for items to be sent to each other that were available in their specific areas like saltpeter and hair pins.…
The election between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams was full of controversy. John Quincy Adams’ presidential term was full of in-house problems because of his race being allegedly being helped by Henry Clay which made his constitutional agenda not being pushed in. But if I were to choose a president, I choose John Quincy Adams because he’s very intelligent and is already with good relations with other countries in Europe.…
John Adams was asked to defend the soldiers and their captain in court the day after the shootings. The soldiers had the odds against them. They were in an American court, with an American judge, and an American jury. No one else was bold enough to take on case as precarious as this case was. McCullough went on to state that John accepted this case because he strongly believed that no man in a free country should be denied the right to counsel and a fair trial (92). Adams knew what troubles he was getting himself into taking on a case like this and the repercussions it had. It would not have been his first difficult case, as he took on a similar case that involved four American sailors killing a British naval officer in self-defense that boarded the American ship. The captain was given a separate trial from the soldiers. Adam’s argued that it couldn’t be proven whether or not the captain gave orders to fire, and with a virtuoso performance given by Adams, the captain was found not guilty.…
John Adams was a man who believed in the law, and in fair play. If the soldiers could not get a fair trial, were we any better than the British and their high handed ways.…
He wants his readers to gain a sense of the realness of these people, who worked so hard for it to be free. He says, "We call them the Founding Fathers, in tribute, but tend to see them as distant and a bit unreal, like figures in a costume pageant. Yet very real they were, real as all that stirred their hearts and minds,' and it as meaning in our time as never before." The reason he may have chosen John Adams to write about as opposed to Adams' co-revolutionaries, is the number of primary sources relating to Adams. Many of the letters were found at the Massachusetts Historical Society, there were letters between John and Abigail Adams, Abigail and her sister, and numerous others. John's diary entries also made a nice addition to the story, building up to the realness of this man. This book was first published in 2001, in New York. Though probably released before the September 11 attacks, it is assurable that if it had been released after, the direct correlation of the American hero would be made of John Adams. I think that the author's goal, in writing this book, is to present the reality of this particular co-revolutionary, which through all the primary documents especially, he was very successful in doing. The single most memorable thing that I learned about were the relationships that Adams had, with other familiar names. This book had really helped me to understand the happenings that went on in the life period of Adams, but also really just how all these historical co-revolutionaries and Founding Fathers were all…
John Adams is the person I admire the most. Since I am on this American Revolution kick, I going to shout out for the Forgotten Patriot. John Adams, without him there might not have been an American Revolution, not that it was an effort by a single man but several singular men held the Revolution together. John Adams endured. People actively disliked him for his intellect, his supposed coldness, and prickly nature. They poked fun at a man who was pudgy and bald before age thirty. A man later dubbed as 'His Redundancy,' Adams was frequently accused of being an aristocrat who lined his purse at other’s expense and despite Adams invaluable service to the Revolution and the Peace, the multi-headed beast first called Anti-Federalist and later Democratic-Republicans.…
One thing that I learned from watching the video John Adams that I did not already know about America’s struggle for independence is that there were many disagreements among the framers. Some were for the Declaration of Independence and some were against it. Some feared the British Parliament as others rather took the risk to form an independent nation. But as all things, there is not anything that cannot be solved. In the end, the Declaration Of Independence was written and the United States became a free nation.…