Mr. Adams and the Massacre
by Max Raskin HBO’s new miniseries, John Adams, premiered this weekend; it is based on the bestselling biography by David McCullough. Producer Tom Hanks manages to retell familiar events in a captivating way that reminds the viewer history was not inevitable. Behind the debates, battles, and trials stood imperfect, nuanced men who made mistakes. The founders were not a monolithic group and each deserves careful consideration. By casting history in this light, events of the past are open to discussion and debate. Were the colonies justified in seceding from Great Britain? Was Washington really the best person to lead the Continental Army? Should there have been a National Bank? Each of these questions raises interesting points not only about abstract political philosophy, but relate directly to current events. The first episode, "Join or Die," focuses on John Adams’s defense of British soldiers accused of the "Boston Massacre." Adams took on the case, convinced the jury that the soldiers were not guilty by showing the crowd had provoked them by throwing ice and oyster shells. Adams, who sympathized with the grievances of the people of Boston, wanted every man to receive a fair trial, regardless of his popularity. He delivers a rousing closing argument that wins the case and convinces the viewer that Adams was heroic and just. Unfortunately, this hagiographic portrayal of our second president needs to be questioned. McCullough's sympathetic view of Adams's actions reveals a failure to apply the classical liberal implications of the Revolution. In debunking Adams's case, the American Revolution itself can be better understood. Adams famously declared, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." He argues that even though the soldiers’ mission may have been an unpopular one, they were not guilty of murder because they were acting in self-defense. Facts may be stubborn things, but alone, they mean nothing. Facts need to be understood in context. Even if the jury conceded that the crowd of Boston did provoke the attack, the British would still be murderers who deserved to be hanged. Adams’s defense of them fails completely. Suppose Smith walks into McCoy’s house carrying a gun and demanding money. McCoy refuses to pay and instead throws a brick at Smith’s head. Smith retaliates by shooting McCoy. If we continue the analogy, Adams would be defending Smith on the grounds that McCoy provoked him by throwing a brick at his head. This is absurd because Smith should not have been trespassing and stealing money to begin with. Similarly, the British were murderers because, like the trespasser Smith, they had absolutely no right to be in Boston; the occupation of the city was an aggressive invasion by a foreign power. Regardless of what King George and the Parliament ordered, the colonists had a natural right to their property and were justified in expelling foreign occupiers. This argument is the thrust of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence – a resolution pushed through by John Adams. Our founders did not question whether what they were doing was legal – it was obvious that they were criminals who committed treason against the King. But when the laws of the King come into conflict with the natural law there is no question which one takes precedence. Adams had no problem with Americans firing on the British at Lexington and Concord, nor at Bunker Hill, nor at Ticonderoga. The fact is that if rebelling against King George was moral in 1776, then it was moral in 1775, and 1774, and 1773. Though the King’s tyranny certainly increased over time, any exercise of power over the colonies represented an imperialistic form of coercion that should not have been tolerated. That the Americans put up with George for so long does not excuse the tyrant’s behavior. While Adams certainly achieved much in his life, he was not a saint and his actions deserve to be scrutinized. He was hypocritical and wrong to defend those wanton killers. Unfortunately, many will accept HBO’s interpretation as the sole one. March 18, 2008 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. He was a summer fellow at the Mises Institute in 2007. Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com |
