Was John Adams a tyrant?

[MiddleRoad]

For jailing political opponents and people who made fun of his weight and such

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

[MiddleRoad]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

[Alben Barkley]

At least he peacefully transitioned power when he lost an election, which is more than can be said for Trump. Who most definitely also would jail people for things like making fun of his weight if he could.

[Mr. Smith]

Not at all.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

This is a totally reasonable framing, but it needs to be remembered that Adams, to his credit, accepted in his post-Presidency that his vision for the country was not what had won out--and, of course, during his Presidency and before, the precedents (pun intended!) relative to which he seems so heavy-handed today just had not really gelled yet. Neither, of course, can be said for Hamilton, who actively tried to push the early republic in a reactionary direction even relative to the course the first two Federalist administrations charted.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, did you know the Federalist was against slavery, the Dixiecrats we're against Judicial Review that put Fed rights supreme over States Rights,John Marshall was Appointed by John Adams he was a moderate Republican in today's standards, Jefferson back then was a DIXIECRAT, but in today's standards he would be a DLC New D like Bill Clinton were Ben Franklin, John Adams George Washington were against Slavery

They were to the right of the Crt females didn't have the right to vote and many Blks except for the likes of Booker T Washington couldn't vote back then until FDR

[MiddleRoad]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

This is a totally reasonable framing, but it needs to be remembered that Adams, to his credit, accepted in his post-Presidency that his vision for the country was not what had won out--and, of course, during his Presidency and before, the precedents (pun intended!) relative to which he seems so heavy-handed today just had not really gelled yet. Neither, of course, can be said for Hamilton, who actively tried to push the early republic in a reactionary direction even relative to the course the first two Federalist administrations charted.

What exactly was his vision?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

This is a totally reasonable framing, but it needs to be remembered that Adams, to his credit, accepted in his post-Presidency that his vision for the country was not what had won out--and, of course, during his Presidency and before, the precedents (pun intended!) relative to which he seems so heavy-handed today just had not really gelled yet. Neither, of course, can be said for Hamilton, who actively tried to push the early republic in a reactionary direction even relative to the course the first two Federalist administrations charted.

As President he wasn't exactly one of the biggest defenders of free speech. I wonder how much of his views were correlated with how he feeling about his frenemy, Thomas Jefferson.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

This is a totally reasonable framing, but it needs to be remembered that Adams, to his credit, accepted in his post-Presidency that his vision for the country was not what had won out--and, of course, during his Presidency and before, the precedents (pun intended!) relative to which he seems so heavy-handed today just had not really gelled yet. Neither, of course, can be said for Hamilton, who actively tried to push the early republic in a reactionary direction even relative to the course the first two Federalist administrations charted.

What exactly was his vision?

Essentially enlightened despotism, with elites creating a strong centralised state that would be in charge of setting economic development.

There are elements of this that would survive (e.g. Jeffersonian policy in practice would often include Federalist methods like tariffs - amusingly the Jefferson era tariffs was often higher than under the Feds) but rhetorically this philosophy never lasted past its charismatic forbearers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

Overtly elitist and anti-democratic. Their idea of an "activist government" was, at heart, one that was run by and for the moneyed classes with the barely concealed hope of turning it into a new aristocracy, and with little to no accountability beyond that. Fundamentally, there was very little about the British social and political system they didn't want to imitate in the US, and given they also wanted to remain geopolitically aligned with Britain you started to wonder what was the point of the revolution in the first place (their answer would probably be an independent trade and tax policy, which, fair, but still not what I believe should have been fought for). Their vision for America is so alien to US politics as they actually developed that neither side of the modern political divide can make any sense of it (hence the ridiculous amount of liberals who now claim Hamilton as their icon).

[MiddleRoad]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

Overtly elitist and anti-democratic. Their idea of an "activist government" was, at heart, one that was run by and for the moneyed classes with the barely concealed hope of turning it into a new aristocracy, and with little to no accountability beyond that. Fundamentally, there was very little about the British social and political system they didn't want to imitate in the US, and given they also wanted to remain geopolitically aligned with Britain you started to wonder what was the point of the revolution in the first place (their answer would probably be an independent trade and tax policy, which, fair, but still not what I believe should have been fought for). Their vision for America is so alien to US politics as they actually developed that neither side of the modern political divide can make any sense of it (hence the ridiculous amount of liberals who now claim Hamilton as their icon).

Got any good resources I can read on this?

I actually tend to agree with this, as the way you said it. The only real issue the Colonists had was with a lack of parliamentary representation, it wasn’t really with the system of government the British had. That was smoke and mirrors to justify a war. But I mean the system of government that has evolved is such a snakey, false system, inherently weak, as well. The system we have now is more corrupt than any aristocracy, you’ve got the combination of a self serving political elite, with a mass of stupid people electing even more stupid people in many cases. A person like Marjorie Taylor Green and people like her having power is an example of the stupid masses having a say in government. I’d rather an enlightened despotism to that. Frankly, I’d rather a scientific oligarchy to that, as well. Maybe the Federalists had the right idea.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Got any good resources I can read on this?

Not off the top of my head, sorry. I'm sure smarter posters here would be able to help you though.

I actually tend to agree with this, as the way you said it. The only real issue the Colonists had was with a lack of parliamentary representation, it wasn’t really with the system of government the British had. That was smoke and mirrors to justify a war. But I mean the system of government that has evolved is such a snakey, false system, inherently weak, as well. The system we have now is more corrupt than any aristocracy, you’ve got the combination of a self serving political elite, with a mass of stupid people electing even more stupid people in many cases. A person like Marjorie Taylor Green and people like her having power is an example of the stupid masses having a say in government. I’d rather an enlightened despotism to that. Frankly, I’d rather a scientific oligarchy to that, as well. Maybe the Federalists had the right idea.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. It's all fun and games to rail against the dumb unwashed masses not knowing what's best for them, but when you put a small elite in power you can know for sure that they won't care what's best for anyone except themselves.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

Overtly elitist and anti-democratic. Their idea of an "activist government" was, at heart, one that was run by and for the moneyed classes with the barely concealed hope of turning it into a new aristocracy, and with little to no accountability beyond that. Fundamentally, there was very little about the British social and political system they didn't want to imitate in the US, and given they also wanted to remain geopolitically aligned with Britain you started to wonder what was the point of the revolution in the first place (their answer would probably be an independent trade and tax policy, which, fair, but still not what I believe should have been fought for). Their vision for America is so alien to US politics as they actually developed that neither side of the modern political divide can make any sense of it (hence the ridiculous amount of liberals who now claim Hamilton as their icon).

Got any good resources I can read on this?

If you're a primary-source person, Adams's own writings--mostly his personal letters--are eminently readable today, and often also very entertaining (he once suggested that if it could be proven that no afterlife or divine providence existed, his advice to "every man, woman, and child" would be to "take opium").

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The Alien and Sedition acts force me to push it over to yes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

Overtly elitist and anti-democratic. Their idea of an "activist government" was, at heart, one that was run by and for the moneyed classes with the barely concealed hope of turning it into a new aristocracy, and with little to no accountability beyond that. Fundamentally, there was very little about the British social and political system they didn't want to imitate in the US, and given they also wanted to remain geopolitically aligned with Britain you started to wonder what was the point of the revolution in the first place (their answer would probably be an independent trade and tax policy, which, fair, but still not what I believe should have been fought for). Their vision for America is so alien to US politics as they actually developed that neither side of the modern political divide can make any sense of it (hence the ridiculous amount of liberals who now claim Hamilton as their icon).

Got any good resources I can read on this?

If you're a primary-source person, Adams's own writings--mostly his personal letters--are eminently readable today, and often also very entertaining (he once suggested that if it could be proven that no afterlife or divine providence existed, his advice to "every man, woman, and child" would be to "take opium").

Oh, and of course there's the Federalist Papers too, if we're talking primary sources. A fascinating read in many ways that will start putting you into the mindset of the political divides that existed at the time. Though keep in mind that the most prolific of the three writers, Madison, was more of a moderate hero and of course eventually switched sides, but his writings at the time still broadly align with Hamilton's vision. And you know, it's worth taking a look at the Anti-Federalist papers as well (yes, they exist) to get a sense of the critiques to their arguments. Both are very well-argued cases for different ways to envision the United States' future.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I might further add we think of D's now different than we did back during slavery of course we think Rs are conservative now because Red means Tradtl and blue jeans Secular just like Communism is red and Democracy is blue

The Crt case that only matters is Marbury v Madison it's the first case that established Judicial Review, John Marshall was a compassionate conservative not a Traditional because Federal rights was supreme over state rights, compassionate conservative like Abe Lincoln's means Federal Rights, Dixuecrat means state rights

It was ignored by the Jeffersonian Dixiecrats until 1863 Emancipation Proclamation where slavery was abolished but we still had Chain gangs until 1963 where the Warren Crt granted public defender's

Of course some can say Adams was a Tyrant now they didn't live during slavery where there wasn't a cotton gin, picking cotton was done by slaves, not all slaves survived many died and slaves were also branded and whipped by DIXIECRAT not Federalist

Jefferson owned 600 slaves he was racist but now he would be a Bill Clinton or LBJ or Joe Biden DLC D but Bill Clinton was more conservative than he was Prez as Gov

During the 1992 campaign I said Clinton was a DIXIECRAT because I support Jerry Brown we would of not been in H and Sen Minority for 12 yrs without Lewinsky

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

No they weren't rotten Adams, Ben Franklin John Quincy Adams didn't own 600 slaves and Madison and Andrew Jackson own 200 slaves , John Adams was from MA and Ben Franklin PA Jefferson was from VA a tobacco state

They didn't fade the Federalist society run the DOJ and all the R Judges are members of Federalist society which means GOP which means R and Jay Edgar Hoover created the Federalist society in the DOJ

Right now Federalism means states rights, but they are against Apartheid, DIXIECRAT Jefferson Davis and Andrew Jackson meant Apartheid

[Senator Incitatus]

No, and if anything the most anti-tyrannical President we've had. Thankfully, and contrary to the belief of multiple posters in this thread, the Federalist vision did win out for a time.

edit: To clarify, I take my definition of tyrant from the chronicler Matthew Paris:

[King] John was a tyrant rather than a king... a lion to his own subjects, a lamb to foreigners and those who fought against him.

Rings sharply of Jefferson, admittedly moreso during his tenure as Governor of Virginia than his presidency.

[Make America Grumpy Again]

He was one of the most tyrannical presidents we’ve ever had but on the flip side ar least we had a free speech and democracy supporter as his successor.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No, and if anything the most anti-tyrannical President we've had. Thankfully, and contrary to the belief of multiple posters in this thread, the Federalist vision did win out for a time.

Dude he literally signed a law banning criticism of his government.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As previously said think of George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Lincoln, Grant, Hughes, Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower as Compassionate Conservative and Jefferson, Jackson, and Robert C Byrd and Strom Thurmond as Dixiecrats during Apartheid, racist Jefferson 600 slaves

SECULAR and Tradition is today's D and R party Left and Right this is 8th Grade Constitution Law Judicial Review and Sophomore ye HS Constitution Law and if you took Civics in College, my 8 th grade teacher Ms Warren taught me about DIXIECRAT and Federatiist nothing changed since my grammar school yrs as opposed to now

Users always misinterpreted what Federalist party were back then George Washington says he was a Compassionate Conservative because he wanted neutrality, even if you think he was Conservative he was a moderate Republican because his Federalist party opposed Slavery

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

Overtly elitist and anti-democratic. Their idea of an "activist government" was, at heart, one that was run by and for the moneyed classes with the barely concealed hope of turning it into a new aristocracy, and with little to no accountability beyond that. Fundamentally, there was very little about the British social and political system they didn't want to imitate in the US, and given they also wanted to remain geopolitically aligned with Britain you started to wonder what was the point of the revolution in the first place (their answer would probably be an independent trade and tax policy, which, fair, but still not what I believe should have been fought for). Their vision for America is so alien to US politics as they actually developed that neither side of the modern political divide can make any sense of it (hence the ridiculous amount of liberals who now claim Hamilton as their icon).

There's a case to be made that the reason American conservatism has historically been relatively distinct from European conservatism is that the tradition that was the most direct parallel was driven, or drove itself extinct.

[Aurelius]

Tyrant is taking it a bit far, but he did have major authoritarian tendencies that modern hagiographers conveniently sweep under the rug, yes. Same with the even more absurdly embellished Hamilton, of course.

The Federalists were a thoroughly rotten bunch, and it's a blessing for America that they faded into the dustbin of history as fast as they did.

Why do you consider the Federalists a rotten bunch?

Overtly elitist and anti-democratic. Their idea of an "activist government" was, at heart, one that was run by and for the moneyed classes with the barely concealed hope of turning it into a new aristocracy, and with little to no accountability beyond that. Fundamentally, there was very little about the British social and political system they didn't want to imitate in the US, and given they also wanted to remain geopolitically aligned with Britain you started to wonder what was the point of the revolution in the first place (their answer would probably be an independent trade and tax policy, which, fair, but still not what I believe should have been fought for). Their vision for America is so alien to US politics as they actually developed that neither side of the modern political divide can make any sense of it (hence the ridiculous amount of liberals who now claim Hamilton as their icon).

Got any good resources I can read on this?

If you're a primary-source person, Adams's own writings--mostly his personal letters--are eminently readable today, and often also very entertaining (he once suggested that if it could be proven that no afterlife or divine providence existed, his advice to "every man, woman, and child" would be to "take opium").

Oh, and of course there's the Federalist Papers too, if we're talking primary sources. A fascinating read in many ways that will start putting you into the mindset of the political divides that existed at the time. Though keep in mind that the most prolific of the three writers, Madison, was more of a moderate hero and of course eventually switched sides, but his writings at the time still broadly align with Hamilton's vision. And you know, it's worth taking a look at the Anti-Federalist papers as well (yes, they exist) to get a sense of the critiques to their arguments. Both are very well-argued cases for different ways to envision the United States' future.

Along the same lines, "Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Jeffersonian Vision of the 1790s" by Joyce Appleby.

[HisGrace]

Definitely agree with a lot of the prior comments. He said some good things in the Revolutionary period and I guess you could give him credit for accepting his defeat to Jefferson which had little historical precedent at the time, but overall I'm really not a fan. Some people are positively comparing him to Trump here with the election stuff, but Trump never did anything remotely close to the Alien and Sedition Acts which it is thankfully impossible to imagine happening in modern America, even in the aftermath of a national crisis like 9/11.

I know red avs like to dunk on Jefferson a lot but you should be glad he won the war over Adams and Hamilton.