Good read. Only complaints are that some of the information is dated; Jefferson and Hemings relations, Washington's height, etc. Considering the book is fairly dated now, that is somewhat understandable.

I am not a John Adams fan. This book, while well-written, did not do much to improve my opinion of John Adams.

I didn't like John Adams very much prior to reading this book, but Ferling endeared me to this flawed, but deeply principled man. Ferling examines Adams' public and private life in great detail, and gives you a strong sense of both his principles and his personality. I teared up towards the end of the book, that's how well written it is.

It gives a great insight to John Adams and how he dealt with those around him. Took a little long to read but it is full of great information!!

This Adams biography tends towards the personal side of President Adams. Casual readers might stay away but anyone with an interest in American History, Biographies, or Adams himself will enjoy it greatly.

A fantastic biography, that is more all-encompassing of Adams' psychology and relationships that the more-popular McCullough biography. This one deals now with Adams' faults and is clearly no hagiography, though you'd respect for Adams is evident. The prose is clear, though he glides over moments and times that I wish he had more detail on (Adams' first meeting with George, he and Jefferson's road trip in the english countryside, what exactly happened to Jefferson over time), though the moments he does zoom in on are fascinating portrayals of the time (his Boston Tea party and colonial Philadelphia reconstructions are fantastic). This, I feel, is the smoothest and most coherent read among the Washington biographies, and again, is a more penetrating and full portrayal of Adams the man and not just the specific events of his life. McCullough's is better at vividly portraying specific moments and their drama, but it flows less easily then Ferling's work. This is a shorter book, and it's astonishing how comprehensive it is for it's length. If you have to choose one biography of John Adams, I'd probably choose this one.

I started reading McCullough’s biography but quickly switched to Ferling’s book, as I found his birth to death narrative structure, modern writing style, and helpful inclusion of contextual facts made the read digestible and enjoyable.

Despite being one of the more conservative Founding Fathers, I walked away admiring Adams for (i) his habit of diary and letter writing, (ii) his impressively strong work ethic, (iii) his unwavering commitment to criminal rights, the constitution, and continental (and later federal) unity, (iv) his lifelong opposition to slavery, (v) his skillful practice of diplomacy, his preference for neutrality, and his avoidance of war except where absolutely necessary (all while building a formidable navy to maintain national security and sovereignty during the Quasi-War), (vi) his devoted though occasionally withheld love for Abigail, (violin) his dedication to independent thought in a period of growing partisanship, and, most of all (viii) his ability to identify his weaknesses and overcome them. Although he was the second president, he held many first titles (some good and some bad): the first American ambassador, the first Vice President, the first Vice President to cast a tie breaking vote in the Senate, the first Vice President to become President, the first President to win a partisan election, the first (and only) President to serve with a Vice President from the opposing party, the first President to live in the White House, the first President to lose reelection, and the first President to have a son become President. However, he was not a man without faults, as clearly evidenced by his self-sabotaging vanity and jealousy, his passage and enforcement of the Alien and Seditions Acts, his consuming hatred of Hamilton and lesser political opponents, and his poor parenting skills. When taking all matters into account, Adams is an undeniably important figure in American history who should be far more appreciated than he is today, as he is, in many respects, much more modern than most of the other Founding Fathers.

It's kind of unfair to review one masterful work by comparing it to another masterful work. But since John Ferling's biography of John Adams will likely always be overshadowed by the success of David McCullough's, which appeared about a decade later, judging Ferling's work by comparing and contrasting it to McCullough's better-known work is inevitable.

McCullough is a gifted writer and an engaging storyteller. His Adams bio is a page-turner. But, ultimately, he's narrating a story, carrying you from Point A to Point B and beyond, without going too deep. Adams is the undisputed hero of McCullough's tale - his rough edges are smoothed off, and any faults of his are either unmentioned or quickly forgiven. For all of the laudable things Adams did, one must also consider his antipathy (possibly based, at least in part, on jealously) toward a beloved figure like Benjamin Franklin, his long separations from his wife and family that bordered on abandonment or neglect, his at-times monarchical inclinations, his complicity in the deplorable Alien and Sedition Acts - all of these are briefly mentioned by McCullough but explained away, lest they tarnish the image of his story's hero.

Ferling's portrayal of Adams, in contrast, is warts-and-all - not in a malicious way, like he's trying to tear down his protagonist, but in an honest way. Just as Adams was honest with himself, acknowledging that he didn't possess all the social graces that others did, that he could be cantankerous and curmudgeonly - Ferling is honest about all of this, too. And his book is all the better for it.

As one who is expert in this era, Ferling provides plenty of history, context and analysis that is somewhat lacking in McCullough's breezier treatment. It can get a little dense at times, since diplomacy and governance don't always make for edge-of-your-seat reading. But Ferling does show enough flashes of fluid, creative, novelistic writing to make this informative read an enjoyable one as well.

And while McCullough's book just kind of ends when Adams dies, Ferling's final chapter is an excellent postmortem analysis of Adams' achievements and missteps, his strengths and flaws - it doesn't elevate Adams to heroic status, but doesn't knock him down either. Instead, Ferling makes a convincing case for why Adams cannot be considered one of the greats of his era - but is well-deserving of being considered among the near-greats. He may not have been as indispensable or destined for immortality in the way that Washington was, but we're all still better off for his having been around.

So if you don't know much about Adams, are curious to learn a little more about him, but prefer an enjoyable, easy read over a more in-depth work - by all means, go for McCullough. It's well worth it. But if you want to go a little deeper without feeling like you're reading a textbook, or if you've read McCullough and want to learn more, you can't go wrong with Ferling's work. They're both excellent for what they are. But to me, in the final analysis - Ferling's is simply better.

When examining American Presidential history, there have been some tough acts to follow. Andrew Johnson in the footsteps of Lincoln got himself impeached and universally hated by almost everyone. Donald Trump followed one of the more transformative presidents in my lifetime (if not legislatively than certainly socially) and well...we know how that went.
But imagine following the very first president. The guy who literally established all the precedents for how the government was to be run as well as being a beloved war hero who was a driving force in winning America’s independence. Oh yeah, he was also socially gracefully, tall, and popular with the ladies.
When John Adams became America’s second president in 1797, he knew he was never going to ever equal Washington’s accomplishments.
While Washington was tall and athletic, Adams was short and overweight. While Washington was at ease in social settings Adams was unable to engage in the small talk with people that greased political wheels. He was stubborn where Washington sought consensus.
Perhaps this is why Adams would often write disparagingly of him in his diaries, musing about how Washington wasn’t as great as people think and how it was Alexander Hamilton who was using Washington as his puppet. It was pretty insecure stuff but in many ways, these petty resentments had less to do with any bitterness toward Washington (he would at other times say he was one of the greatest men he had ever known) than Adams’s deep seeded and lifelong insecurity that he would never amount to what he believed he should.
In a sense however, the need to be important and known to posterity which Adams often writes about (and castigates himself for) in his diaries is what drove him to the heights he would eventually reach. As a diplomat, as an important and forceful proponent of American independence, as a vice-president, and eventually president.
It is by any definition an impressive resume and yet when we talk about the men who shaped early America, Adams is rarely mentioned.
In my humble opinion, I believe this is as much to do with Adams’s faults as the things that made him great. For all of his pomposity and vanity, he was also consumed by a sense of justice, honesty, and a certain naivete about the motivations of the political forces swirling around him
For Adams, it seemed impossible (sadly only to him) that keeping key members of Washington’s cabinet in his own administration would result in divided loyalties or political machinations. After a long, hard fought war with the British, surely men would put aside their own ambitions for the good of the nation.
They did not. They eventually would paralyze his presidency and consign him to a single term.
In a sense, this belief in the greater good of the nation (if not a belief in the masses themselves) is one of Adams’s most admirable qualities and one that would shine brightly in his son John Quincy later in his life.
Unfortunately, Adams was as unyielding about politics as he was with his sons. Put another way, he was a pretty terrible father and husband.
Away from his wife Abigail for large portions of their marriage, he essentially was content to be apart from her when it suited him and only reunited with her when it suited him. This is not to say he didn’t have affection for her, but his letters seem to indicate that it was very much a relationship on his timeline.
More of a tragedy however is Adams’s relationship with his sons.
His letters seem to indicate a fairly distant and cold man who drove his sons to reach the standards he set for them.
In the case of John Quincy, who would eventually become president, we can perhaps say he was successful. But by John Quincy’s own accounts, his daily life as a child and young adult was one of constant struggle to live up to the demands of his father. Take this letter from Adams to a young John Quincy:

"You came into life with advantages which will disgrace you if your success is mediocre. ... And if you do not rise to the head of your country, it will be owing to your own laziness and slovenliness."

Yikes.
More tragically, Adams’s son Charles Francis was less able to cope with the constant demands placed on him by his father. He eventually turned to alcohol and drugs to, one can imagine, escape from a life not of his own making.
During his final months before his tragic death, John Adams essentially renounced his son. Telling Abigail that he wanted nothing more to do with him and how much of a disappointment he was to him. True to his word, Adams did exactly that.
So what do we do with this man?
At once a true American hero in the Revolution. A man as President who kept the country out of a potentially disastrous war with France. A man who could have eased some of the financial pressures on himself by owning slaves but steadfastly refused to do so on moral grounds. An incorruptible, honest to a fault man who strove endlessly to make himself, his sons, and his nation better. These are all laudable traits.
Yet, he was also an incredible vain and judgemental man, prone to nursing petty grievances. He was an absentee husband, father, and probably drove at least one of his sons to the bottle and an early death.
Thinking about this generation of Americans, I think Adams exemplifies the range of possibilities of what humanity was capable of. Unspeakable evil in the practice of slavery and yet there was also the courage and heroism of the revolution. It is a spectrum that leaders today perhaps cannot replicate and therefore it is hard to judge anyone, much less Adams based on present day expectations.
Perhaps it is too easy to say that Adams was an immensely complicated man but after learning more about him, I think it is the most apt description of who he was.

3.5. Solid review of a man who was a part of our founding nation. A completely different type of man than the larger than life, self taught, George Washington, but still an important man who defended America’s independence.
Very informative. A wonderful vocabulary utilized by Ferling.

This book on John Adams by John Ferling is an excellent read. I have read David McCullough's book on Adams and, although I loved McCullough's book, I think Ferling's bio is more balanced and I would give it a slightly higher rating than McCullough's book. Ferling paints a more troubled relationship between Abigal (the wife) and John and he does an excellent job on analysis of John Adams and his place in history. One of the things he does that I liked was to point out the various and sundry conclusions that previous biographers of Adams had reached then he gives his own.

Some of the things I learned:

1) There was a powerful faction of reconciliationists in Congress even after the war started.
2) Adams was the first one asked to write the Declaration of Independence, but he declined. (Which is a good thing because we would not have the beautiful and simplistic prose penned by Jefferson if Adams had written it. His mode of writing was too legalistic.)
3) Adams was an ambitious and jealous man. He could get very angry about things, but he was intelligent and prescient about many of the things that took place during this period.
4) New York delegates abstained from voting for independence and several folks who were against independence did not show up for the vote thus making the final vote unanimous in favor of independence.
5) Adams abandoned his wife and children while he pursued the greatness he never believed he would attain. By this I mean he left them behind for years while he was off to Philadelphia and France. As a result he had some troubled children.
6) Adam's greatest accomplishment was keeping us out of war with France during the French Revolution even though it cost him a second term as president.

For those who are intimidated by an 800 page biography, this one is only 454 pages and is a real gem in terms of content and analysis. I highly recommend it.

Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in John Adams and looking for a more traditional biography (as opposed to, perhaps, the McCullough version). I thought that the first half of the book seemed to drag on and was a bit tedious. The second half of the book went a lot faster, and I enjoyed the insights into Adams' time in Europe and in the federal government.