This is my first crack at an Adams biography. I found Ferling's assessment of the life to be largely a fair one: not fixating on the internal contradictions or more obvious character flaws. I will say Ferling does spend a good bit on the deep seated ambition of the man--his drive for recognition--which pushed him to great heights but came at a great cost to his family. But as this is a significant aspect of the man, it justly warrants significant analysis and critique.

Adams' life is surely an interesting one. Schooled at Harvard, a brilliant lawyer--Adams joined the independence movement in the early 1770s. He was sent to the constitutional convention, where his influence was largely felt. He was instrumental in writing the Massachusetts state constitution, was a key player in negotiating peace terms with the British over seas. Perhaps his greatest achievement, Ferling indicates, was his keeping the nation from war with France during his tumultuous presidency--an unpopular decision much opposed by his own party. This sacrificial decision allowed the new union to remain intact in the fledgling days of its infancy.

I found Adams' political views to be perhaps even more interesting than the life, and worthy of a deeper study in the future. Though a revolutionary desirous for independence from England, Adams was more ideologically conservative than many of his peers, wary of both the tyranny of the many (democracy) and the tyranny of the few (oligarchy). His reluctance to join in on the liberal ideals of Paine and Jefferson led to false accusations that the statesman was a monarchist. Adams' convictions were rooted in his Puritan upbringing (which emphasized the depravity of man) as well as his disdain for the French revolution--which highlighted what can happen when the mob is unchecked. Because of these fears he advocated for a powerful executive in the government to balance the will of the masses.

Ferling's prose is enjoyable to read, and his depiction of Adams and the surrounding events of his life struck me as objective. This volume is a solid, middle length biography which provides a good portrait of a complex man in revolutionary times. I recommend it.

1st book of 2023

RTC

Any book that followed Ron Chernow's biography on Washington would likely come up looking worse by comparison, which is definitely fitting considering John Adams the person. Prior to reading this book Adams was one of my favorite presidents (mainly due to his portrayal by William Daniels in the excellent musical 1776) and also because Washington always seemed passive, compared to the feisty or obnoxious Adams. Whereas Washington was elevated by Chernow's book by actually having many of the personality traits and important moments that form our picture of him, Adams appeared to have less of a role regarding American independence than I'd previously thought.

When choosing this book, I compared the reviews to McCullough's biography on Adams, as these were the two most highly rated. The negative reviews on that book however, talked about how McCullough tended to gloss over Adams's faults, and tended to make excused for him in order to keep on point about his greatness. This will probably be the first president I double-dip on biographies for because this book certainly didn't do that. The result was an educational read, but none of the passion or amazement that came from reading Chernow's biography.

As with Washington, I'll look at different aspects of Adam's life covered in the biography, so I can look back and compare all these different presidents down the line:

Born into - Adams was the oldest son of a modest man, and as a result was put through school instead of having to work the field or be a soldier, or any of the other more likely jobs his relatives went into. While not quite a rags to riches, a la Alexander Hamilton, he didn't inherit money like Washington or have the physical attributes that commanded respect. In that way, he comes out ahead for thriving with fewer advantages. 4/5

Pre-president - This was the biggest area where John Adams disappointed. His role in rebelling against Britain really didn't begin until about 1774, long after his cousin Sam was really making a difference in public opinion. Adams writing was also never impressive, so it can't be said that he was influencing people passively like Thomas Paine. Although he was on the committee with Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence, he didn't believe it would be anything that would be remembered. Adams served as a Diplomat to France, but spent most of his time bickering with Benjamin Franklin, who (this author at least) believes accomplished much more while overseas. Adams credited himself with the great accomplishment of getting the aid of Holland during the war, but this was done after the Battle of Yorktown, the turning point of the war. He also served as the first vice president, and historians have only found two instances Washington even consulted him. Where he did shine was in outworking any other man in Congress (more hours and more committees) and in taking most any assignment given to him. Still after reading this book, it's tough to give him too much credit for most of the things he's famous for. 2 out of 5.

Presidential career - Adams is best remembered for two things as president, the Alien & Sedition Act, and his midnight judges appointments. Both are considered negatives historically, but the author here minimized Adams culpability for both. For the prior, the acts were pushed through by a Federalist congress, and Adams only used the Sedition Act (which was still bad, prosecuting critics of himself or his party), never the Alien acts (deporting citizens that were threats to the country); for the latter, appointing people of your party is something most people in power will do while they are still able to. The one great accomplishment of Adams presidency was keeping America out of a war with France while his own party was pushing for one. Adams was wise enough to seek counsel from Washington, and utilize him as needed to prepare for war, but also to depend on diplomacy and time to avoid the conflict. It's likely only Adams or Washington had enough clout in the Federalist party to avoid war in a similar situation. Adams also would spend six months in office and six months back home. Adams was a one term president. 2.5 out of 5.

Vice President - Thomas Jefferson was Adam's vice president, and once again the officeholder did nothing to assist the sitting president. This time, the two men were also rivals and of opposite parties. Although the two were friends earlier in life, and reconciled in the end, once again at this point in history they did not have this office figured out. 1 out of 5.

First Lady - For the first half of their marriage, John chose career over family 90% of the time. In particular, he went years without seeing his wife or children for his appointments in Europe. Abigail kept the farm running, but I didn't get the feeling it was a happy life for her or the children. Of the four children that grew to adulthood, 2 became alcoholics, and another had a disastrous marriage that kept her dependent on her family for her entire life. Abigail's most interesting time was basically when she was writing letters to other men while her husband was away. Although the two seemed to settle down together better into old age, this certainly was a romantic marriage to envy, and she did nothing of note while her husband was in the White House. 1.5 out of 5.

Post presidency - Adams essentially retired after his presidency, and led a LONG life. Most of his time was spent writing letters to his colleagues, and trying to set the record straight with various historians. The author correctly points out that Adams was elevated in popular opinion by his manner of death (dying on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, on the same day as Thomas Jefferson). That's a story I've heard for years, and was certainly more interesting than anything else Adams did in his final years. 4 out of 5.

Book overall - I learned a lot reading this book, which is always a goal. I don't believe Ferling was a big fan of Adams, which transfers onto the reader. Ferling seemed to only put quotes from Adams's writing when it included a spelling or grammatical error, of which I noticed a few in Ferling's own writing (which is more of a critique on the editor). The book seemed like a fair interpretation of Adams the man, and you can't ask for much more than that. If it had also been more entertaining, or generated more passion (in either direction) I'd have likely given it a five.

Most biographies of other Fathers portray Adams in a very unpleasant light. He is often described as vain, paranoid, antisocial, and vindictive. This biography, while dispelling certain myths around Adams, does not deny the accuracy of many of these claims. However, as the author points out, We have such a clear view of Adam’s faults because he is one of very few Fathers who did not curate his correspondences. Notably, Washington and Jefferson are infamous for not only destroying letters but editing letters. They were able to choose the image they wished posterity to see, for the most part. Adams did not do this, and therefore we know more of his personality. Jefferson might have been just as vindictive and vain, but because of his efforts we see him only as a sphinx.

As the author describes, Adams is a highly intelligent man with a great political acumen. Unfortunately, he was born in an era with men who were even greater in all the areas he was great in. Washington and Jefferson far surpassed Adams in influence, respect, and raw political power. Hamilton and Madison surpassed Adams in political intelligence and prowess in debate and law. Adams’ most lasting contributions were the endless efforts he made in support of the Continental Army in Congress during the war, his handling of the proxy war with France, and his efforts in support of independence before the declaration. His actions, while impressive, were not indispensible. Adams is great because of the circumstances of his life, not particularly because of his achievements.

Much of the infamous Adams-Hamilton rivalry seeps into the author’s writing, with a significant anti-Hamilton bias appearing. However, author makes a remarkable concession when he states that Hamilton cannot be blamed for the Alien and Sedition Acts, maybe the most notoriously un-American acts of earlly history, because of Hamilton’s caution and words of restriction on them. I personally would not absolve Hamilton in this case, but the author does so to a certain extent.

While Adams is extremely vain and paranoid, he does have a major redeeming quality. His moral integrity when engaged in politics to the extent he was, is impressive. The major difference between Hamilton and Adam appears to be Adams unwillingness to engage in the conniving politics that Hamilton was. Partially as a result of his religious upbringing, Adams had a code that he did not violate, even for political advancement, and this is commendable. However, this did not extend to his treatment of his wife and children who he neglected for year son end, only changing course and valuing his family once his political career was towards its end.

There is a narrative to the Adam’s presidency that he was politically incompetent, did not realize his cabinet was taking orders from Hamilton, and only was successful because external forces controlled his administration. According to the author this is inaccurate. The author argues that Adams tried to be an bipartisan figure in a time where party rule had just been born and was vehemently strong. He argues that Adams was not controlled by his cabinet, and Hamton by proxy, but made his own decisions based on his political experience, research, and advice from trusted advisors. Adams still comes off as politically naive to an extent in this argument, but it is persuasive in convincing me that Adams is not a puppet president who needs to be controlled. His handling of the XYZ affair and his maneuvering of the French proxy war crisis where a war hungry public wanted war is an demonstration of his skill.

Did more than most people know.

Simply a must read for anyone remotely interested in our history during those times. Fabulous writing.

[Really a 4.5] My sole experience of Adams up to this point is three-fold: the HBO mini-series, 1776, and what little can be gleaned from a familiarity with various history textbooks. And with those in mind, I will admit, I was not impressed. This biography helped shift my perspective.

Sure, Adams remains the same self-righteous curmudgeon that he's so often described as, although Ferling did an admirable job showing the brighter, wittier aspects of his character that would come to light from time to time. But Ferling convinced me of what no other source has - Adams was both important and consequential.

To some extent, I figured this to be true, since he was both a Founding Father and the second president. But simply listing his accomplishments seems to put him in the bottom tier of that illustrious group. And while Ferling couldn't quite convince me that he belongs on the same level as Washington and Jefferson, he surely could give Franklin a run for his money.

A few highlights from Adams' biography: 1) I never realized his importance during the Revolutionary War - he may have been the hardest working man in Congress. 2) I've never seen such a full exploration of his time abroad during the diplomatic years, especially in relation to his work on the Treaty of Paris. 3) There may not be a fuller explanation of the XYZ Affair and Quasi-War with France.

Ferling's exploration of that least piece makes this biography worth the price of admission by itself. The situation with France during this period has always been a cause of confusion amongst many a student throughout the years. Not only do you need a decent understanding of the larger foreign policy context to understand it fully, but you also need to be prepared to dive into the intricacies of a very "he said, she said" scenario. Ferling is a careful guide through these events. Beyond bringing clarity, though, he also brings the reader to a newfound respect in Adams' foresight and attempts to achieve peace (you know, minus the whole wearing-a-sword-in-public-and-using-bombastic-language thing).

There are a few pieces of Ferling's approach that encourages further research, though. He definitely has a bias against Washington. While Washington may be a more ambiguous figure than the majority of biographers let on, Ferling lays it on pretty harshly - basically insinuating that Washington made little to know real decisions during his presidency (at least none that weren't engineered by Hamilton behind the scenes). He also gives us a fairly negative portrayal of John's relationship with Abigail, which tends to go against the common wisdom in these circles. While he brings more evidence to support his views here, I'd still be interested in picking up a few other articles on the subject.

Despite these qualms, if you're looking for a biography on Adams that is equal parts readable and learned, this is a great pick!

I started this biography of John Adams right after reading Flexner's biography of George Washington. I said in that review that no doubt reading a biography of a different American founder by another author would complicate the picture. Boy, did it ever!

This is a well-written, erudite biography, and in some ways it's stronger than Flexner's. I liked how Ferling, unlike Flexner in his one-volume work, constantly referred to other historians and biographers of the leading figures, airing the various controversies among them. It made Ferling's account seem all the more reliable that he pointed to where others' disagreed. Flexner also is obviously very admiring of George Washington, and I think that often in biographers that can be a dangerous thing. Ferling, on the other hand, while admitting to also feeling "profound admiration" for Washington, for Adams claimed he felt only "esteem and affinity." And that mirrors how I felt about Adams by the end of this biography--not so much admiration as sympathy and respect. If the theme of Flexner's biography of Washington is that we owe to him the success of a republican form of government, the theme of Ferling's take on Adams is that Americans owe their independence to him, as he was crucial in the push toward breaking from the "parent state," and then in steering the young nation between the Scylla and Charybdis of British or French domination in his roles as diplomat and United States president.

If anything in the picture Ferling painted made me skeptical, it's his take on Alexander Hamilton. Ferling unequivocally stated that Hamilton's Federalists served to "enrich the few" and did much to "foster corruption" and described Hamilton as having a "low, cunning dishonesty," and Washington (among others) as "but a puppet of Hamilton." Flexner's picture seemed more balanced and without the evident rancor of Ferling, who seemed to base his view of Hamilton and the Federalists entirely on their political opponents. Flexner warned against seeing the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans in terms of today's parties or simplifying them as one being the party of the rich and the other of the poor--a trap Ferling seemed to fall into. Flexner's account didn't make either Jefferson or Hamilton look good. But Flexner certainly made a case for a Hamilton much more loyal than Ferling admits, and a Jefferson much, much more dishonest, even treacherous, than Ferling ever hints at. At times Ferling's account seemed contradictory. He claimed the Federalists' survival depended on war with France, yet admitted Hamilton urgently advised against war with France. Ferling cited plenty of evidence that Adams was an advocate of monarchy, that he considered "hereditary rule inevitable" then excoriated Hamilton and others as unfair for attacking Adams on that basis.

In the end, Ferling's John Adams: A Life was a thought-provoking and entertaining biography--even moving in parts. Never more so than at its end when relating the rapprochement and friendship of Adams and Jefferson in retirement, both struggling to live until the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. My next read is a biography of Thomas Jefferson by Cunningham. If the Stockholm Syndrome-like attachment of biographers for their subjects holds there, I somehow doubt Alexander Hamilton is going to fare any better. It makes me want to read a biography of that much maligned man. Certainly the biographies of Washington and Adams so far reveals a much more complex picture of history than the plaster saint pablum served up about the "founding fathers" suggests.

A wonderful supplemental reading to David McCullough’s book. A must read if you enjoy reading about the founding fathers, the process of the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, etc.

Overly detailed. At least 15% of this book is spent talking about other notable figures of the era; to the extent of noting what they liked for breakfast. By the time we get to Adam’s presidency very little time is spent here and mostly on two issues. Also, if you choose to listen to this the narrator is terribly mundane.

This is my fourth presidential biography and this one was by far the hardest to get through.

I knew close to nothing about John Adams, so I learned quite a lot from this book. Overall, it was a good biography that mixed the personal with public well. Adams was truly remarkable in his worth ethic and intelligence, and is largely responsible for our USA system of checks and balances in government. However, he was thin-skinned, obsessed with fame and prestige, and obtained his power at the expense of his family. As usual, one of my favorite things learned from this book is about the women's lives. His wife lived pretty independently as Adams was gone most of the time, and ran the farm on her own like a boss.

Overall - again just stunning what people were willing to sacrifice to establish the USA and work for its sustainability. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment Adams had while he was president was *not* going to war with France when everyone around him wanted to do so. It's always surprising to see how many times this country may have been smothered in its infancy. Adams did more than his share to prevent that, despite his many personal failings.

This book left me feeling very humbled and emotional over what this founding father accomplished. I cried for John Adams just as I cried for George Washington after reading his biography. John Adams was a man who did not give up. He did not have the attitude that he had better things to do, but he kept on mulling over a political issue or speech or any other issue or concern because giving up was just not an option. He was dedicated. He was the work horse. Unfortunately he didn't receive the credit he deserved during his time like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and his legacy has not been as profound in modern times. However, he has started getting the credit he deserves with the publication of biographies such as this and I couldn't be happier. Very good man and a very good book!