Tags
1776, 18th Century America, American Presidents, Benjamin Franklin, Caesar Rodney, Colonial America, Donald Madden, Howard Da Silva, James Wilson, John Adams, John Dickinson, Ken Howard, Peter Stone, The American Revolution, The Declaration of Independence, The Second Continental Congress, Thomas Jefferson, William Daniels
On May 23rd, Milwaukee Opera Theater will stage a production of the musical 1776 at Turner Hall with what sounds like an interesting piece of staging. Since the musical tells the story of the Second Continental Congress and the struggle to declare independence from Great Britain, and since the delegates at the Congress conducted their debates from tables representing their state delegations, the audience and the performers will all be seated together at long tables. In advance of the production, I’ve been asked to write a review of the film version of the Broadway play, 1776 (1972, dir. Peter H. Hunt).
The film is set entirely in Philadelphia, with all but a few scenes taking place in and around the chamber in which the delegates met and argued, covering a period from May through July 4th. It focuses on the efforts of John Adams (William Daniels, perhaps best known for voicing the talking car on Knight Rider), Benjamin Franklin (Howard Da Silva), and Thomas Jefferson (Ken Howard) to get the Congress to commit to independence, thereby allowing the birth of the United States of America. It concentrates on the clash of personalities among the delegates, the competing interests of the different colonies, and the struggle between political idealism on the one hand and pragmatism on the other. Apparently, the Declaration of Independence was like laws and sausage in that it’s something you don’t want to see getting made. Most of the debate takes place behind closed door during the insufferable Philadelphia summer heat.
There are three major things to understand about the film (and the play it’s based on). First, the Continental Congress was held in secrecy and kept no records of its debates. That means that when Peter Stone sat down to write the musical, he had to rely on much later accounts of what was said, simply filling in the blanks with best guesses and invention. Because the later memories of the debates were often colored by subsequent events, it’s very hard to know for sure what actually went on in that sweltering room.
One place we can see this is in the film’s treatment of John Adams, who is repeatedly described, even by himself, as obnoxious and widely unpopular with the other delegates. This derives from Adams’ own famous recollection of himself as “obnoxious, suspected, and disliked” in a letter he wrote in 1822. His view of 1776 was heavily colored by the events of his generally unsuccessful single term as President of the United States, which culminated in the Election of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican supporters defeated the Federalist Adams in what is quite possibly the single nastiest presidential election in American history. (Both sides were horrified by the unexpected emergence of political parties, and were convinced that the other side had suddenly become profoundly corrupt. Each party insisted the victory of the other would literally ruin the country. The Federalists accused the Deist Jefferson of being unchristian, intending to ban the Bible, and wanting to initiate French Revolution-style domestic bloodshed, while the Democratic-Republicans claimed that Adams had schemed to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George III and thereby found an American royal dynasty; one writer claimed that Adams was a hermaphrodite. Although Alexander Hamilton was a member of the Federalists, Hamilton repeatedly attacked Adams as a fool. Adams felt deeply betrayed by Jefferson, who was his close friend and vice-president, and their friendship suffered a breach from which it never truly recovered.) So when Adams described how reviled he was in 1776, he was projecting his experiences in presidential politics back a quarter-century. In fact, in 1776, he was one of the most highly-respected figures at the Congress.

President John Adams
The second important thing to understand about 1776 is that although there were at least 57 members in the Congress, the film only shows about 20 of them. So many of the characters are composites of two or more characters, condensing them to make the cast and story more manageable. For example, Massachusetts sent at least 5 delegates to the Congress, but we only see two, John Adams and John Hancock. The John Adams of the film is a combination of Adams and his famous cousin Samuel Adams, while Eldridge Geary and Robert Treat Paine are omitted. The film would have you think that Rhode Island sent only the drunkard Stephen Hopkins, thereby cutting its delegation in half. Georgia is represented only by Lyman Hall, whereas the state eventually sent three delegates.
A third issue is that in order to make the story sufficiently dramatic, Stone found it necessary to play fast and loose with the biographies and political views of many of the characters. For example, in the film Caesar Rodney is an elderly man suffering from skin cancer and near death. Although he is a proponent of independence, he has to drop out of the Congress partway through the debate because of his health problems, leaving the Delaware delegation deadlocked between the pro-independence Thomas McKean and the anti-independence George Read. Later McKean leaves to fetch the dying Rodney back to break the deadlock. The reality is more complex. Rodney was only 48 at the time of the Congress, and he lived for another five years afterward. He left the Congress not for reasons of health (although he was already plagued by the skin cancer that would eventually kill him) but to deal with problems with Loyalists back home in Delaware. When McKean wrote to him about the deadlock on the Delaware delegation, Rodney rode 70 miles at night during a thunderstorm to arrive in Philadelphia the next day just in time to cast the deciding vote committing Delaware to independence. For his troubles, his constituents ousted him from office the next year.

Rodney’s ride commemorated on the Delaware State Quarter
Stone made the choice to focus his story on the three best-known figures of the Congress, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson. Adams and Franklin are essentially the driving engine of independence, constantly acting to rally the others (including each other) when their morale flags or quarrels threaten to collapse the whole proceeding, while Jefferson is mostly just the author of the Declaration of Independence. The film depicts Adams as passionate, righteous, and mostly humorless, while Franklin is constantly throwing out memorable quips (some of which he actually said elsewhere, some of which Stone invents). Franklin is a bit pompous but able to laugh at himself. The film repeatedly nods to Franklin’s randy side; when he learns that New Brunswick has been overrun with whores, he’s eager to go and find out what conditions are like there. The historical Franklin was in fact notorious for his many sexual liaisons (he may have had as many as 15 illegitimate children), a side of him that most modern Americans never hear about. The film glosses over Franklin’s deep hostility to the British, although it references his falling out with his loyalist son William, who was the British governor of New Jersey until he was arrested.
John Dickinson
The biggest misrepresentation in the film is its treatment of John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. In the film, he is Adams’ primary antagonist, at one point actually getting into a brawl with him in the Congress chamber. The film depicts him (Donald Madden) as being a stout Loyalist and basically worried more about his wealth and property than issues of principle. The reality is far enough from this that the cinematic Dickinson is essentially a fiction. Dickinson was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies, but he was also a staunch proponent of independence. In fact, he helped write both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. In 1767 and 68, Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer” helped unify Colonial opinion against the Townsend Act as a form of illegitimate taxation. But in the film, it’s Adams who makes this argument against Dickinson.

John Dickinson
In the film, the Pennsylvania delegation is split between Dickinson, Franklin, and James Wilson (Emory Bass), who is depicted as a rather timid judge easily brow-beaten by Dickinson. But when the critical vote comes, Wilson rather bizarrely says he prefers to be forgotten and knows that if he votes with Dickinson, he will be remembered forever as the man who prevented American independence. So he votes with Franklin for independence. Leaving aside the silliness of this argument, which presumes that America will become its own country before it has actually done so, the depiction of Wilson is simply untrue. In 1776, he wasn’t yet a judge, but he was one of the leading political theorists in the colonies; in 1768, he wrote perhaps the first treatise offering a legal justification of American independence from Great Britain. One modern author has called Wilson “perhaps the greatest intellect in America after James Madison.” At the Congress, he was a firm supporter of independence all the way through the proceedings, although he felt that he was bound by the will of his constituents and therefore insisted on polling his district before he committed himself. George Washington eventually appointed him to the Supreme Court.

Madden’s Dickinson
When Dickinson loses the vote, he announces that he cannot in good conscience sign the Declaration of Independence, although he will enlist in his local militia to fight for the cause. But Dickinson’s actual objections to the Declaration were quite different from the ones he offers in the film. He felt that the Declaration should wait until the Articles of Confederation were written and foreign allies secured. He was intentionally absent from the critical vote on the Declaration. As a lawyer, he strongly objected to Adams and Jefferson basing the Declaration of Independence on the notion of Natural Law derived from a Supreme Being. He preferred to ground the document on the notion of ‘Rights of Persons’, a much more limited legal principle, because he was worried about re-opening a key political debate from 17th and early 18th century British politics. His opposition to the concept of ‘Rights of Man’ is the reason why the US Constitution approaches the question from the ‘Rights of Persons’ angle and makes no mention of Natural Law concepts like the Rights of Man’. (And yes, I’m simplifying things to avoid a long explanation of the difference between these two theoretical models.) Dickinson also had a number of other concerns. He represented a Quaker faction that felt that violence was not the appropriate way to achieve independence; he preferred civil disobedience. He also worried, correctly as it turns out, that independence would lead to the Quakers getting overshadowed politically.
Because the film doesn’t address any of Dickinson’s actual concerns, it simply makes him a bad guy seeking to protect his own position and wealth and turns him into a bully and loyalist, who then needs to be redeemed right at the end because he’s still a Founding Father, even if he didn’t sign the Declaration. It’s shabby treatment for a man whom Jefferson later called “one of the great worthies of the revolution.”
Want to Know More?
1776 is available at Amazon. The Director’s Cut includes a number, “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men” that was removed at the request of the Nixon administration because it was thought to be a dig at 20th century Republicans.
I’m a bit out of my league in terms of historical scholarship on the Continental Congress. But if you want to know more about John Dickinson, try The Cost of Liberty or try reading his Letters from a Farmer. For John Adams, David McCullough’s John Adams won the Pulitzer and is worth reading.
Boo!! Can you be more depressing? Annie didn’t really happen like it’s written yet we know there were orphans in New York in the thirties, Mormon missionaries exist but are there any who have spooky Mormon hell dreams? Come on- watching 1776 every 4th of July is a joy. I always cry at the end when the call the role and the delegates rise to sign the document. I don’t care if it’s totally historically accurate- it’s a great moment in life and it’s exciting in the play and movie. Some things in the movie are historically correct though- the songs sung by John and Abigail Adams are based on actual letters they wrote to each other, the entire discussion and song about why they did not abolish slavery in the final draft and the song that is sung about the dead soldiers. In addition, the movie version is one of the only movie versions of a play to cast many of the same actors who appeared in the Broadway play. And it is a play- a musical- it’s never stated it’s absolutely historically accurate it’s based on historical events. I call shenanigans on your depressing review. Sit back, suspend your fact checking and enjoy Mr. Feeny’s excellent performance.
LikeLike
You’re perfectly welcome to enjoy 1776, but that’s not what this blog is about. My job here is to discuss what a historian sees in historical films. So if you don’t want to read discussions of what really happened, you should read some other blog.
And, as I’ve said before, there’s no such thing as ‘just a movie’. https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-just-a-movie/
These alterations make a difference. For example, this film chooses to be quite unfair to one of the most important of the Founding Fathers, John Dickinson. I imagine that his descendants might have a rather different view of the film than you do.
LikeLike
Have you asked John Dickinson’s descendants what they think of the movie and his portrayal? Have they even seen it? Besides the fact that I actually think that the movie does a decent if not exactly factual job of not making him a villain but allowing the character in the movie (not the real man) some respect, it also gives viewers a chance to know his name. I highly doubt very many people who aren’t historians of American independence or who’ve seen the movie have ever heard his name. That’s the beauty of the movie- you learn a bit, Mr. Feeny sings some songs and everyone feels good. It’s based on fact, it isn’t fact and I don’t think you should judge it that way. I don’t know, it’s a small movie not many have or ever will see- give it a break.
LikeLike
Again, if you don’t like the purpose of this blog, you’re free to not read it. But my goal is specifically to critique films on how they use and misuse history. So telling me not to do the specific thing my blog is set up to do is just being contrary.
You’re right that the film will give people a chance to learn Dickinson’s name. That’s definitely a good thing. But it’s also going to teach them that he was opposed to the Revolution, which he wasn’t. You’re basically arguing that the viewers will only learn certain details while not learning other details. My experience with my own students tells me that’s not true. Historical films sharply influence how most people understand the past (as well as how they understand politics, the legal system, science, and a host of other things). Film is an extremely powerful teaching medium, and as a teacher, I want to push film-makers to be responsible about how they use their power. Again, there’s no such thing as ‘just a movie’.
And the film is quite well known. Lots of people tell me they’ve see it, watch it annually around July 4th, and so on.
LikeLike
“The film would have you think that Rhode Island sent only the drunkard Stephen Hopkins, thereby cutting its delegation in half.”
To be fair, it seems like the film’s portrayal of Hopkins is pretty accurate to his reputation in Rhode Island; the man liked his rum, it seems. To be fairer, he was an accomplished politician, serving a number of times as colonial governor over the notoriously-unruly Rhode Island (remember, while the Bostonians protested taxes by ruining tea, and the New Yorkers protested by stealing it, Rhode Islanders protested by luring the tax ship aground and then burning it), and attending most of the important colonial congresses despite his advanced age, so maybe he could be given some slack.
As for the question of whether you’ve written a “depressing review” — clearly, you are doing what your blog does, but I wonder if historical musicals have a better or worse track record of adhering to rough historical fact than non-musical movies. I would guess worse, because, on top of having to force the messiness of history into neat-ish narratives of 2 1/2 hours or less, musicals have to also work in catchy tunes, which history so often fails to provide….
LikeLike
Pingback: 1776: Winking at the Future | An Historian Goes to the Movies
I think if anything, Wilson comes across worse than Dickenson in 1776. Dickenson is at least portrayed as having a stance. Wilson comes across as having absolutely no opinion about anything at all.
Also, more as a side note, I’ve never, in any production of 1776 that I’ve seen, heard Wilson played with a Scottish accent.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point. But Dickinson is a much more prominent character
LikeLike
I would give you ten dollars if you can find- honestly- 20 people who have seen this movie (not counting me). I’ve never once seen it on regular tv- occasionally it’s on PBS and this year I watched it on you-tube and I had to really search for it all over the channels connected to my chrome cast.
I don’t know- if you’re gonna blog and then make the blog public and offer space for replies, I don’t think it’s fair to dis people’s replies by saying if you don’t like it don’t read it.
Didn’t you write it so we’d read it? I thought your blog was interesting and I wanted to give my opinion. I didn’t say your facts were incorrect, just that it’s a fun movie to watch with some good performances by some Broadway vets. My opinion is factual, too. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
I certainly do want people to read my blog and reply. But you’re telling me to not do the thing my blog specifically sets out to do–comment on the way films and tv shows use history. So telling me to cut them slack is essentially telling me to not blog. Sure, you can say that, but if that’s what you want, this isn’t the blog for you.
And I guarantee you this film has a following. If you search online, you’ll find lots of places where people talk about how much they like it, how they watch it every year, how accurate they think it is, and so on. The play ran on Broadway for three years, although it didn’t enter the canon of great musicals like other shows from that era like Chicago, perhaps because of its lack of a romantic plot. The musical gets staged regularly because of its patriotic theme, and there’s a performance of it in my home town literally tonight. So it’s not an obscure film, although the lack of big-name stars gives it a lower profile.
LikeLike
I’m an actor in the Milwaukee area- have been for over fifteen years, I do professional and community theatre- i choreograph high school and college shows all around the area and until MOT did their version I have never once even heard 1776 come up as an option in discussion for a season. Me thinks you are really in to your own opinion yet can’t agree with others. MOT gender bent with casting and I’m sure no one changed their opinion that the Continental Congress were men.
The play was nominated for a Tony when it first debuted and there’s been one revival on Broadway since and it starred the guy who played Data on the new Star Trek and it didn’t run very long. Again, musicals are rarely totally based on all facts.
Why don’t you blog about The Revenant? I’ve read the book and I think you’ll find really good material there to debunk.
LikeLike
I guess I don’t understand why you’re unwilling to acknowledge that my blog is about critiquing how movies use history.
I understand that musicals are not based entirely on the truth–no movie or play will ever be 100% accurate. It’s not possible. But the places where a movie deviates from fact mean something. In this case, the meaning is that they needed to gin up conflict between the Founding Fathers, and that required that there be some sort of antagonist for Adams, so they settled on Dickinson. That inevitably distorts how viewers will think of Dickinson. So my post points that out, because that’s exactly what my blog is about.
Perhaps when I get back to Milwaukee we can meet up for coffee and discuss this. I’m sure Alan P. would be glad to host this–he’s the one who asked me to review 1776.
I’ve thought about doing the Revenant, although it’s not a film I have a lot of interest in. Slate did a really good job of showing how this story has evolved over its many incarnations. But perhaps I should look into it.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I adore “1776.” I first saw it on local New York stations, back in the 1970s, who would play it on the Fourth of July, interrupted frequently by the same commercials over and over. My husband gave me as a gift the VHS tape of it back in the 1990s. I watch it every Fourth of July. Love the music, love the performances.
My point in posting is to tell you that as a lover of the film, I appreciate your article on it. (I wouldn’t call it a “review” because the point of it is not to critique the film as a film, but rather as history.) To discover what is and what is not historically accurate in it is exactly why I sought out your blog. I assume that every film that deals with historical events takes some poetic license, so I wanted to know in what ways “1776” did. It doesn’t lessen my liking of and appreciation of the film at all. You’re performing a useful service.
LikeLike
Thank you! I’m glad you found it useful. I have to confess to not really liking 1776 as a musical. None of the musical numbers really catches me on an emotional level, but perhaps that’s just the film version. The lack of a romance plot sort of hurts it as a musical, I think.
You’re not the only person I’ve seen say they watch it on July 4th. For some people, it’s sort of a patriotic ritual to watch it.
LikeLike
I totally acknowledge the meaning of your blog, I suppose it just bothers me that this movie that I love and know takes serious liberties with the truth is so bad. Also, I guess I kind of think it’s annoying that you would assume people would take such a thing as gospel truth- I mean honestly, we all know about Sally Hemmings but it’s still fun to watch ‘he plays the violin’.
If your intent is to prove the inaccuracies of movies and not just up talk Dickinson, you ought to review all movies in the same way. I guarantee you that The Revenant was seen and believed by way more people in one season than 1776 will ever be.
Also, I’m enjoying this discourse. It’s makin’ me feel smart.
LikeLike
Tell me, what did Scotsmen wear in the Middle Ages? What did Viking grooming habits look like? (I promise, this is relevant to our discussion.)
LikeLike
I forgot- and I don’t mean to sound bitchy but regarding your Slate comment- you can pretty much find every single repudiation you made regarding 1776 on the 1776 the movie Wikipedia page.
LikeLike
I have no idea. I’d probably have to look up both of those questions to find the answer but I know you want me to say kilts and bushy red hair and beards and blonde braids with hats that have horns. I’ve read the Highlander series and I’ve seen Braveheart and although I don’t recall any Viking movies I’ve seen I’ve read a few books based on their attempts to colonize certain land and I’ve seen the bugs bunny cartoon where he romances a Nordic female bunny. Other than those fallacies my lack of true knowledge impedes my answer. Sorry.
LikeLike
That’s basically what I thought you’d say, and you understood the issue enough to know exactly the cinematic depiction of these two groups. But those depictions are completely false. Medieval Scotsmen didn’t wear kilts, because they hadn’t been invented yet, and wouldn’t be until Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Nor is there much evidence that the Norse were bushy-haired–the best evidence we have is that they were very well-groomed, often wore their hair short, and were quite concerned with washing regularly.
But Braveheart has embedded in people’s minds that Scotsmen wear kilts. This would be like American colonists wearing muscle-shirts or business suits.
My point here is that historical movies do in fact influence how people understand the past. Yes, the audience knows on a rational level that these stories are fictionalized, but that doesn’t stop these films from imbedding false ideas about the past in people’s heads. Hollywood is incredibly good at teaching people things, and it’s usually false things. When I teach the Middle Ages, I have to spend probably a full hour at least (over the course of several lectures) ‘unteaching’ my students before I can teach them the truth, because if I don’t tackle the false ideas they’ve absorbed, they will be extremely resistant to the facts. They simply won’t accept, for example, that medieval Scotsmen didn’t wear kilts, unless I spend half an hour explaining why Braveheart is wrong.
Now kilted Scotsmen probably don’t matter in the long run; no modern political or social ideas are likely to be influenced by the false idea. But movies about American history, like 1776, can powerfully shape how Americans understand their own past. Until fairly recently, movies didn’t want to acknowledge just how awful and violent American slavery was. Like this film, they don’t want to acknowledge that Jefferson repeatedly raped Sally Hemmings and sold his own children away. They want him to be ‘troubled’ about slavery, when he absolutely wasn’t. That’s a HUGE problem.
Here’s another example. When Oliver Stone’s JFK came out, one historian did a study where he polled people before and after the film about whether they believed that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy. What he found was that prior to viewing the film, very few people believed the conspiracy theory, but after viewing, the same group of people strongly believed the conspiracy theory–belief in the conspiracy jumped by about 40%. So Stone’s film has been re-writing recent American history in a very powerful way. That’s one reason that I think conservatives really don’t want to see movies in which Reagan’s Alzheimers is acknowledged–they know that it will shift the way people think about this man who is such a powerful symbol for them. It’s not just about ‘respect’; it’s about protecting their ability to argue for conservative issues.
That’s why I think it’s important to discuss where films rewrite history.
LikeLike
You’ll never get a consensus from Americans on really anything. We don’t want the exact truth and sadly no one really cars if Vikings combed their hair or not- for the most part. That’s why Jesse is either with blue eyes and Obama is a Muslim.
In MOTs production they color and gender bent with casting and no one seemed to be bothered by it in the long run. What they learned was that a bunch of Americans declared independence and some songs were sung. I’m not saying what you do isn’t important, I just question whether or not it’s worth it to take such unbridge with a small, enjoyable movie.
LikeLike
That tendency to whitewash Jesus is exactly the sort of thing I would look at in a film about him. I’ve tacked that issue for a couple of movies about ancient Egypt. And these issues do matter; otherwise people wouldn’t whitewash.
I don’t think the size of a film is a reason to give it a pass. I try to be fair to any movie I review, taking it on its merits regardless of budget or how famous it is.
LikeLike
“Whitewashing Jesus”? He was Jewish, right? Most Jewish people I’ve seen look white, and I would say are white since Jew-deism is a religion, not a race. So wouldn’t Jesus have been white? I could be wrong, but that’s what I’ve always thought.
LikeLike
Jews at the time of Christ would have looked a lot the way some Arabs do–darkish-brown skin with curly black hair. Jewish skin-tone has lightened a lot because of ethnic mixing with Europeans.
The American tradition of depicting Jesus with fair skin and long blondish-brown hair (what I call Hippie Jesus) is a 19th century tradition adopted for explicitly racist reasons. It has no basis in historical fact.
Jesus was probably short (almost everyone back then was, by modern standards) and probably rather muscular–he was a carpenter, after all
LikeLike
I saw on a documentary about “The Veronica”, that the image of Jesus we all know started with it a long time before the 19th century. It supposedly dates back to the 4th century (though that is probably unproven), but at least as far back as the 13th century. Of course, even if it dated back to the 4th century, it may still be entirely inaccurate. But I’d say “hippie Jesus” dates to long before the 19th century, even if it is wrong.
LikeLike
That’s supposed to be cares and Jesus has blue eyes..sorry- and it’s umbridge.
There’s glory in proofreading before you post…sigh.
LikeLike
There’s only one verse in the Bible that really describes his actual looks and although I don’t know it verbatim, I believe it’s in Isaiah and it says he’s not super attractive on the outside. Also, he lived in the Middle East and not Europe so no, Jesus the man was not white. In the New Testament it says that beards and side burns should not be trimmed so he probably was a very Mediterranean looking dude with dark eyes, dark skin and a big ass bushy beard.
But it doesn’t really take much away from his teachings or deeds- unless you’re racist.
Just sayin’
PS- just google ‘what did Jesus Christ look like’ form ore info…
LikeLike
The only place in the Bible where there is a distinct description of Jesus, the man is in the Old Testament (I think, Isaiah) and it says something about him not being attractive on the outside but beautiful on the inside. We know from the New Testament that Jesus was born in and lived in the Middle East- not Europe so he would’ve been dark skinned and he teaches to not trim beards or sideburns. Therefore- no he wasn’t white.
PS Google ‘what did Jesus look like’ and you’ll find all kinds of scripture to help you.
LikeLike
Oh and regarding your JFK comment, no offense to Oliver Stone and his fairly prolific career: if you polled people now about JFK, the movie I bet at least 70% of people would say they’ve never seen it- or Platoon or Born on the 4th of July.
LikeLike
Pingback: 1776: Let’s Talk about God | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Andrew, I know I’m very late to the party here, but I stumbled on your blog post here on 1776 and I have to say I’m in full agreement with you – the founding fathers were pretty amazing people, but it’s important (especially for Americans) to know them for who they were. To my mind, understanding a historical person’s faults is an important part of appreciating who they were and what they did. We do our heroes a disservice by whitewashing them.
Anyhow, in that spirit, I’ve just completed an edited version of 1776 that makes it more historically accurate (and makes it a non-musical; I know there are folks who don’t care for it as a musical). Feel free to download it and check it out – it’s just in time for this year’s Fourth;.
https://katcr.co/torrent/3181150/1776-the-historical-edit.html
LikeLike