Jason, I have not read Hartman’s book… but I question the thesis, though it indeed is an interesting perspective. It seems to me that Hartman ignores that the reaction the Colonists had to East India Trading Company was more of a symptom than a cause. But obviously without reading the book…

C

Only later, when the laws became unpopular, did Adams say he’d seen problems with them and blame Alexander Hamilton for their passage. (Hamilton, in fact, wrote that they were unnecessary and overboard.)

Abigail Adams and her nephew, who was Adams’s secretary, both wrote strongly in favor of a Sedition Act. Sedition during an Adams administration meant, of course, saying bad things about the Adams administration. Abigail didn’t like that, while John probably always assumed people were doing so.

I first looked through the Adam’s Family Papers online (which are not all of Adam’s letters of course) and there were only 4 references: Link:
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/search.cfm?start=1&hi=on&tag=text&archive=all&query=%22Alien%22&submit=Search

In these letters he seems indifferent: neither supportive nor unsupportive. Actually, the most ardent supporter of them seems to be Abigail.

Joseph J. Ellis states that “Adams went to his grave claiming these laws never enjoyed his support,” and that the chief sponsors where the “extreme” Federalists in Congress. (”Founding Brothers,” p.191). In his citations he mentioned, among others, James Morton Smith’s “Freedom’s Letters: The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties” (1956). I have not read Smith.

Esmond Wright in his “Fabric of Freedom, 1763-1800,” wrote that Adam’s “deplored them,” the Alien and Sedition Acts (p. 225).

I find no solid evidence to support either, that he happily signed the laws or that he struggled with his decision at all. I guess this is one of those “interpretive” events of history?

I’m not so sure that the two points of view you mention are so far apart. On the one hand, I think it’s fair to say that in many ways the intent of the Revolution was about home rule, not about a dramatic change in the political or social structure. That change came, but to a large extent it was entirely unanticipated. It may seem obvious to us in hindsight that 18th Century Republicanism would lead to 19th Century democracy, but I don’t think it was apparent to participants at the time. Moreover, I don’t think that the Gordon Woods of the world disagree. They refer to the changes that the American Revolution ultimately wrought, but they don’t claim those changes were anticipated at the time.

For a well-argued discussion that emphasizes the conservative, home-rule, power-based nature of the revolution, I heartily recommend Theodore Draper’s A Struggle for Power.

Finally, on the HBO Adams miniseries, I loved it, which surprised me. I found the book utterly vapid. In addition, I’ve really disliked Paul Giamatti in the past, but I have to give him credit: he was superb. Laura Linney has been a favorite of mine since Breach (which is a must-see, outstanding), and she did just fine in a difficult role. The Thomas Jefferson actor — whoever he was — also did a great of job of conveying just how annoying he was. (I know, I know, them’s fighting words.)

My one question: the series portrays Adams as having significant qualms about signing the Alien and Sedition Acts. True, or not? Basis?

If you look at the run up in Boston to the Revolution, the issues are small, but the implications tend to be big. Not Pearl Harbor or 9/11 or even Fort Sumter, but an escalation of events past the point of compromise. An accomondation to the British after the Intolerable Acts becomes an surrender of identity.