In the series George came across as an accomplished fearless military leader which, to his detriment carried over this to the political arena. He was cold and often reprimanded his cabinet, especially treating John Adams with no remorse. It seemed that George had an inferiority complex towards John. Was this a true depiction of the real George?
LOL...either that or his wooden teeth made him miserable! I'm watching on HBO-GO and at episode 5 I'm thinking the same...small world!!
shareIt seemed that George had an inferiority complex towards John.
True to a certain extent. But Georges attitude wasn't quite befitting of a president, let alone the chartered president.
Case in point, his inauguration speech. If there was ever a time to show your patriotic passion, it would've been during your acceptance speech. His voice was hardly audible to people standing 5 feet away let alone a whole audience.
When cabinet discussions seemed to move into more substance, George was portrayed to be adrift and aloof from the conversation, hardly pitching in his thoughts or even acknowledging that the conversation was taking placed. ie Jefferson & Hamilton debating the forming of a central bank. A clear indicator that he didn't understand much about politics.
IMO his farm life upbringing and military background didn't give him the depth to survive in the political arena. Coupled together with his lack of soft people skills and displays of frustration, which IMO, comes from his lack of knowledge shows that he wasn't quite the right man for the job. Jefferson, Adams and to a certain extent, Hamilton seemed more politically adversed to lead.
I agree with Hancock the Superb.
George Washington had to be the first President. It was the natural culmination of all that he had done as a military leader for America. This is the same reward America has given to Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower.
Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton were not in the same league as heroes to Americans as Washington was at the time of his election. I think ,for example, it was many years before Americans knew that Jefferson had pretty much written the Declaration of Independence by himself.
I like David Morse as George Washington but he wasn't my exact view of the great man. We have to remember that we as viewers are looking at George Washington through John Adams eyes. Plenty of stuff having to do with Washington as President is missing.
I always thought a great view of him as President is in Richard Norton Smith's book 'Patriarch' that covers plenty that the miniseries could not depict.
An alternate view of Washington that I find no less valid than the one given in 'John Adams' by Morse is Jeff Daniels excellent portrayal in 'The Crossing'. There is no lack of passion in that view of Washington.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
[deleted]
Morse wasn't an ideal Washington (least of all physically!) but I think he got the essence of his character down pretty well. You're right though, having the show from Adams' point of view limited how much of Washington we actually saw.
"I shall tread uncommon wary and keep my pepperbox handy."
Actually Morse was a VERY good Washington -- he is about the exact same height (6-3, which was towering for the times) and he has a fairly good facial resemblance.
Washington was somewhat shy and socially awkward, and when he became president he felt he had to maintain a distance from all his subordinates (which of course included everybody).
He felt it would lower the dignity of the office if the President became a knee-slapper, a party dude, etc etc.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
Actually Morse was a very good Washington -- he had a pretty good facial resemblance and also the right height: Morse is 6-4 while GW was 6-3 -- towering for the 1780s.
Washington physically towering over most of his contemporaries was much commented upon by almost all observers.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
I like David Morse as George Washington
I do too!!
Morse gave me chills when he rose and stated that hevwas ready to raise an army of 1,000 men and pay for their subsistence from his own funds. He adds that he will march the men himself to the relief of Boston. It might be because of where I'm from but I find this to be one of the most amazing scenes I've ever seen!
shareBut that is the essence of Washington's being: to present himself a stoic man above the political fray. Critiquing him for a perceived lack of charisma is missing the point, as he was not positing himself as a politician, but an apolitical leader.
As for the Cabinet meeting, it seems to me that Washington did not want to get drawn into a vicious argument with two men who couldn't stand each other, rather than a lack of understanding.
"I shall tread uncommon wary and keep my pepperbox handy."
Remember at a time when most men were 5'5 and 140 pounds (1700's) Washington was the size of an NFL linebacker, over 6'3 and well over 200 pounds. In Adams they say, "he's always the tallest man in the room." And studies have shown, that we, like many species of the animal kingdom, offer deference to the largest in the pack. Until a word is spoken, or absent any other determinants.
Then add in GW's wealth, his successful farm, his education and his war record. And you find some reason for him to feel superior. After all he was elected president. That alone would suggest he possessed several enviable characteristics.
But the thing about him that impresses me most, was his keaving office after his 2nd term, and in doing so he established the tradition that still stands, that no president serve longer than 8 years, lest he begin to feel like an emperor, instead of a public servant.
I'm starting segment 4, loving it. This ought to be mandatory in every grammar school as part of civics of America's history.
George Washington by most accounts was simply not a political being. He resented being a governmental head and tried to run the country with a militaristic form. He did not take advice well. That being said John Adams was extremely political and aggressive in the search for power. He was described as stiff and aloof with all peoples outside of his family, while Washington was social by nature. They were opposites in every particular and this was displayed in the series on numerous occasions. Washington was not mean but he was also not friends with Adams whom the story centered on. If my brief description of Washington was not enough for a charter analysis I suggest reading some of his personal writing…let him explain who he was!
shareWhat's forgotten by all here, are two critical things. First, was the role reversal of Adams and Washington. Adams was the "lion of the Congress" and head been head of the War Committee, and thus Washington's boss during the war. So, these two men had been side by side for years and now had to change the dynamics of their relationship. Remember also that between the end of the war and 1789, Washington had retired to Mt. Vernon, and Adams had continued to see his reputation ascend with is foreign postings.
Second, Washington, as has been mentioned here, was no politician. That does not mean he wasn't a leader. To the contrary, he lead, but he despised politics and in the Hamilton/Jefferson conflict, he saw the beginning of the party conflict that he had warned about.
Washington, perhaps like Reagan, has been constantly underestimated by critics. His successes speak for themselves, as does the acclimation by the American Public as to his choice as President.
Second, Washington, as has been mentioned here, was no politician. That does not mean he wasn't a leader. To the contrary, he lead, but he despised politics and in the Hamilton/Jefferson conflict, he saw the beginning of the party conflict that he had warned about.
Looking back at that particular time in our country, it is interesting to note how the interaction and clash of personalities showed how men with particular qualities suited for particular positions came together to fashion a government and country. In hindsight, it sure looks like Washington was the correct choice to have been the first president of the United States. Would Adams or Jefferson have made a difference? I'm not sure considering the time and what was required in political positions for the nascent country. We apparently struck gold with having a man of the qualities and character inherent in a George Washington of Virginia.
All I remember was watching this series for the first time, seeing David Morse play Washington, and thinking -- WOW, he's perfect. Your attention is drawn to him right away, whether it be his height, clothes, or demeanor ... and I thought he was scripted marvelously.
shareI agree. He nailed it. His facial expression suggests that he is in considerable pain from his teeth. He carried himself with dignity at all times, and I think he truly looked the part.
share[deleted]
Pretty ruthless, while nothing suggest murder there is stories about him burning british loyalist homes and farms down and imprisoning people. Then again that was the times and the british did the same thing.
shareAloof and distant yes but he could no wrong in the eyes of the people
share