Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

by Gordon S. Wood

A New York Times Book Review Notable Book of 2017From the great historian of the American Revolution, New York Times-bestselling and Pulitzer-winning Gordon Wood, comes a majestic dual biography of two of America's most enduringly fascinating figures, whose partnership helped birth a nation, and whose subsequent falling out did much to fix its course.Thomas Jefferson and John Adams could scarcely have come from more different worlds, or been more different in temperament. Jefferson, the optimist with enough faith in the innate goodness of his fellow man to be democracy's champion, was an aristocratic Southern slaveowner, while Adams, the overachiever from New England's rising middling classes, painfully aware he was no aristocrat, was a skeptic about popular rule and a defender of a more elitist view of government. They worked closely in the crucible of revolution, crafting the Declaration of Independence and leading, with Franklin, the diplomatic effort that brought France into the fight. But ultimately, their profound differences would lead to a fundamental crisis, in their friendship and in the nation writ large, as they became the figureheads of two entirely new forces, the first American political parties. It was a bitter breach, lasting through the presidential administrations of both men, and beyond. But late in life, something remarkable these two men were nudged into reconciliation. What started as a grudging trickle of correspondence became a great flood, and a friendship was rekindled, over the course of hundreds of letters. In their final years they were the last surviving founding fathers and cherished their role in this mighty young republic as it approached the half century mark in 1826. At last, on the afternoon of July 4th, 50 years to the day after the signing of the Declaration, Adams let out a sigh and said, "At least Jefferson still lives." He died soon thereafter. In fact, a few hours earlier on that same day, far to the south in his home in Monticello, Jefferson died as well. Arguably no relationship in this country's history carries as much freight as that of John Adams of Massachusetts and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Gordon Wood has more than done justice to these entwined lives and their meaning; he has written a magnificent new addition to America's collective story.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, Presidents, American Revolution

512 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 7, 2017

About the author

Gordon Stewart Wood is an American historian and professor at Brown University. He is a recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992). His book The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (1969) won the 1970 Bancroft Prize. In 2010, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Barack Obama.

Reviews

[David Eppenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a reverential devotion to the history of our founding and to the people involved in that undertaking. The more I read and learn about that era and about those engaged in that endeavor the more I am struck by their humanness and thus am further impressed with how difficult and dangerous our founding really was. While it is easy to revere Washington I have found the characters of Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton to be more interesting and identifiable as real people with real virtues and real flaws. When I found this book by Gordon Wood there was no question of my purchase. Now that I have finished reading it however I admit that the task was not an easy one.

Much can be said both positive and negative about both Adams and Jefferson but one thing you cannot say is that these men were boring. So why was it that I was more than tempted a few times to quit this book because of how tedious it was? Once again we have an eminent scholar of American history writing for the benefit of his colleagues and not for those that truly need his wisdom, the reading public. Inspite of my growing disappointment I persisted in reading the book to the end because quitting a book ranks as near sacrilege to me. I can happily report that my persistence was rewarded as the author redeemed himself but I can't say this redemption is enough for me to be able to recommend this book to anybody that isn't a true devotee of the American Revolution.

The first quarter of the book starts a bit slow but then the author's approach becomes apparent and understandable. Wood is going to compare these two American icons and examine their agreements and disagreements. To do this the author gives us a study of those factors that affected the development of the personalities of Adams and Jefferson. The author details their family history, the nature of the communities and society in which they were raised, their friends and education, their employment, their romances and subsequent marriages, and their ambitions. I found this to be quite interesting and more informative than any prior history I have read about these two men. Then things started to really bog down because now the author decided to detail the origins of the political beliefs of these two men. When the author started to discuss the political ideology, philosophy, and theories of government of Adams and Jefferson it wasn't enough to simply tell the reader what each believed. No, the author had to give the origins of their thoughts by discussing the books they read on these subjects and then discuss the authors of those books and the origins of their thought. It is writing like this that gives studying history a bad reputation. I had to fight to stay awake on several occasions. The author obviously is very learned in this area but he didn't have to display the entire extent of his knowledge and more than a little restraint was definitely needed. This discussion spans the second quarter or third of the book and then it mercifully ends.

The book's redemption arrives in the last half when more recognizable territory appears starting with Adams' assumption of the presidency. This portion of the book contained a great deal of information that I have not previously encountered. The author relies heavily and quotes liberally from the correspondence of both men during this period of their lives. After their friendship was restored in the early 19th century they engaged in an extensive correspondence that the author uses to clearly highlight how these two giants of our history felt about a great number of issues of then current importance and about past events. This correspondence was as Adams stated their attempt to understand each other before they died. In all the reading I have done in which Adams and Jefferson are featured none has illustrated as clearly as this book how these two men thought and why. While this is true I only give the book a satisfactory rating of three stars because of the quagmire of the middle quarter of the book. With a bit of editing this could have been a much more readable, informative, and enjoyable book.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

“…a conviction that truth, between candid minds, can never do harm.”

FRIENDS DIVIDED is a well-researched and thoughtfully reasoned examination of the views of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on many of the issues that were central to the founding of America. It is an engaging and very informative read. The text explains with great detail the nuances of the ideas and thoughts of these two men. In today’s world where we glam onto 1 or 2 aspects of a person and use it to define their whole self, this take is really refreshing.

The opening chapter “Contrasts” is an excellent set up of the differences between these two men. It set the stage for what follows. Consider these two descriptions of them:
Jefferson-“Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially in politics.
Adams- “…fearless of men and of the consequences of a bold assertion of opinion in all his speeches.”
Talk about a different take on something!

When author Gordon Wood examines their views on republicanism and the success of a national republic it is obvious that these two could not have been more correct. They both anticipated “a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption…will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people.” It is breathtaking as one takes in their genius and astute observations about government and human nature. The book contains a wonderful examination on the views of a Republic, and also the philosophical foundations of “all men are created equal.” It is enlightening reading.

One cannot read this text without being continually amazed at the relevance and prescience about America that the founders possessed. They still understand us better than we understand ourselves. It’s astounding. John Adams was especially prophetic and accurate in his thoughts on the disaster that the French Revolution became and its consequences. He also correctly predicted what the party system would do to American politics. When these men worried about the vocal “few exerting influence over the many” they could not have predicted the fallout of this current woke nonsense in any more accurate fashion.

Quotes:
• ”Without virtue and self-sacrifice, republics would fall apart.” (TJ)
• “How could any man judge unless his mind had been opened and enlarged by reading?” (JA)
• “…wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people were necessary for their rights and liberties.” (JA)
• “Every society has inequalities which no human legislator ever can eradicate.” (JA)
• “I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” (TJ)
• “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” (TJ)
• “…always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes absolutely mad.” (Ben Franklin about John Adams)
• “…not all equally strong, wise, handsome, active, but equal in the sight of God. Equal in rights and obligations. Nothing more.” (JA)
• “Take away hope and what remains?” (JA)
• “Great is truth, and it will prevail.” (JA)
• “Power must never be trusted without a Check.” (JA)
• “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (JA)

I will warn that this book is not for the casual reader. Gordon Wood is a historian, and he can get a little wonky. The chapter “Constitutions” is an example. Its exploration of various state constitutions and the manner in which they affected the federal one has depth. I’m not a casual reader, and it occasionally pushed my limits.

The book winds down on some very high notes. The chapter “Reconciliation” is awesome reading. There is a lot to digest in its pages. And the final chapter is a brilliant summation.

FRIENDS DIVIDED explores with depth the philosophical underpinnings of Adams and Jefferson and their actions. In exploring this aspect of these men we get to know them. It is not a traditional biography in the giving of the details of their everyday lives. I learned a lot about these great men (who I have read much about already) in its pages. It is a worthwhile read. You will be the better for it.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are two of America's founding fathers. Adams was our second President and Jefferson was third. Adams kinda got the short end of the stick because he had to follow George Washington. Adams personality was just not really conducive with life in politics. Jefferson on the other hand was made for politics. He was large than life even in his own time.

Friends Divided follows Adams and Jefferson from their early days plotting to overthrow the British government in America, through their lives in politics and into their post politics lives. The book claims that Adams and Jefferson were friends who turned on each other because of politics. But I don't think Thomas Jefferson was ever Adams friend. Jefferson was a phony friend.

Friends Divided was an eye opening look at just how much American politics hasn't changed in 200 years. I need to read more about John Adams in the future but next up in my project to read about every U. S. President, I'll be taking a deeper look at Thomas Jefferson's little secret...Sally Hemings.

I highly recommend this book and until next time always remember the politicians have always been trash.

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a double biography that recounts the lives of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It also recounts the creation of the republic. This is primarily a book about ideas as represented by two of the founding fathers. I enjoyed this book immensely. The author has a variety of topics and goes back and forth between the viewpoints of Adams and Jefferson. I learned a lot about both men as well as a good review of the founding of this country.

These two men, more so than other presidents, could be called philosophical statesman. There is a theme about the New Englander who never owned a slave and the Virginian who own many slaves. I found it interesting that both men read widely and collected libraries of classical and modern thinkers. These two men were quite different but found common ground in books and inquiring minds. Woods states that over the past two centuries Jefferson has become more popular and Adams has almost disappeared. I have to declare a bias on my part of being fascinated by John and Abigail Adams.

The book is well-written and meticulously researched. Wood finds relevance in one of their most arcane interest in political theory. Gordon S. Wood is a history professor at Brown University. He does a great job demonstrating the improbable friendship, estrangement and reconciliation between Adams and Jefferson. Woods states that Jefferson told Americans what they wanted to hear. Adams told them the truth and what they needed to know, which the Americans did not want to hear.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is fairly long at about eighteen hours. James Lurie does a great job narrating the book. Lurie is an actor and voice-over artist as well as an audiobook narrator.

[Aaron Million · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gordon Wood is an expert on the American Revolution in general, and he shows his expertise on these two titans in particular in this dual biography of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. While obviously not an exhaustive biography of either man, Wood instead focuses on the two men's complicated relationship with each other. To write a full biography of both men would result in a gigantic book, so by focusing mainly on their interactions with, and thoughts about, each other Wood manages to keep the book tightly focused.

The early part of the book has the two men on separate tracks as Wood goes quickly - though not too quickly - through the background of Adams and then Jefferson, contrasting how different each man's upbringing and childhood environment was. In those days people often referred to their individual state as their "country". And Massachusetts and Virginia were both quite different from each other. Wood successfully argues that much of the later tension and issues that the two men have amongst each other is due to their beginnings: Adams growing up with no wealth, no sponsors to get him into positions of power, very little slavery; Jefferson being born into privilege, always being deferred to, always owning slaves. Adams had to work hard to get where he wanted to go. For Jefferson, whatever he wanted he got. He never could control his lavish spending, nor successfully deal with being a slaveowner. Adams had to break through doors that stood wide open for Jefferson.

The narrative flows fairly swiftly until Wood gets to Adams' political philosophy. While I did not mind this section, it could get pretty deep in the weeds when reading about Adams' thoughts on monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Trying to read Adams today is somewhat of a struggle for three reasons: 1) he had the habit of capitalizing all of his nouns; 2) he constantly referred to ancient Greek and Latin philosophers, along with French and English philosophers during or slightly before his own time; 3) he was a very vain man. Thus, in this section - while needed for the point that Wood was trying to prove - I started to wonder when it would end.

Once we get to mid-1770s Philadelphia, the two men finally meet, and Wood focuses on their interactions and work with each other, and the budding friendship. Both men came to respect one another during this period despite possessing completely different temperaments. Jefferson abhorred confrontation and was invariably polite to everyone. If he did not have something good to say, he did not open his mouth (a pretty good habit to adopt). Adams by contrast was often an explosion of diatribes about anything and anyone. If Adams did not like you, you knew it. As one can imagine, Adams alienated a lot of people. He was cantankerous even in youth and middle age, and seemed to constantly be spoiling for an argument. Jefferson was polished and poised, although his writings were a much different thing entirely.

When the two men serve together in France in the 1780s is really where their bond is cemented. Each man spent several years in Europe, working towards peace and also trying to help finance the fledgling U.S. government. Abigail Adams became close to Jefferson and his daughter while Jefferson spent a lot of time with a young John Quincy Adams. Given their falling out later, this is the period that allowed the two old men to reconnect years later.

Yet, even while in Europe, their political differences began to surface. Jefferson was extremely pro-French, and was an unabashed admirer and supporter of the French Revolution. Meanwhile, Adams fawned over the English constitution and basically wanted to adopt most of it for America. Jefferson believed in the power of the common people (which is ironic considering that he was an aristocrat) while Adams favored a limited monarchy or controlled aristocracy as he did not trust the people (the common term back then was the "middling sorts").

Once they both returned to America and served under George Washington (although Adams really was not involved since he was Vice President and had no influence with Washington), their differences became marked. Jefferson continued to support France and even approved of the bloody revolution, while Adams moved steadily towards a pro-British stance. Both men began making critical remarks about each other in correspondence to others, and their earlier warmth evaporated. This only worsened when Adams was elected President and Jefferson Vice President in 1796. By this point, political parties had formed and Jefferson was the leader of the Republican Party while Adams was with the Federalists, even though he was never a party man like Jefferson was.

Those four years passed with little interaction between the two men. In the 1800 election, Jefferson won, with Adams failing to be re-elected. Adams was so bitter that he did not attend Jefferson's inauguration, choosing to depart Washington D.C. early that morning. Ironically, his son did the same thing to Andrew Jackson a few decades later. Must run in the family! It is unfortunate though that Adams chose to be so petulant and disagreeable. Even though Jefferson was in office twice as long as Adams was, Wood focuses more on Adams' presidency given Jefferson's position as Vice President and also leader of the opposition party. Once Jefferson takes over, Adams retires to Massachusetts. The two men never see each other again.

The final parts of the book focuses on the reconciliation between the two men through letters. They ended up corresponding for well over a decade before both died on July 4, 1826 (the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence). Adams wrote much more to Jefferson than vice versa, but Wood also notes that Jefferson's correspondence dwarfed that of Adams (again, Adams had spent a lifetime making enemies). I'm not sure that the two ever fully reestablished the intimacy that they shared in the 1770s and 1780s. I don't think they did, although they did go a long way. Jefferson somehow managed to put up with Adams needling him about his position on France, and things that he did while President. Jefferson usually either ignored the gibes or tried to gently deflect them. Reading some of what Wood quoted makes me question why Jefferson even bothered to correspond with Adams, as oftentimes it seemed that Adams tried to provoke an argument. About the only subject that Adams stayed mostly away from was slavery, since he knew Jefferson's situation and views on that. I am glad that the two managed to put aside most of their differences. It was better for them, and I think it has served ever since then as a good example to the country to show that people can forgive and try to move forward. One thing I would have liked to have seen here is a mention of the last letters exchanged between the two, but Wood doesn’t mention them.

This is an excellent book, interesting, neutral, and quite fascinating to study both men and how they interacted with each other. One word of warning though: this would not be a good introductory book to either man, nor the time period. While Wood does provide context, many important events and places and people are barely mentioned or completely ignored altogether as they did not directly impact Adams and Jefferson's relationship. Having some background on each man beforehand is suggested. If you do have that background, then you will find this to be a real treat.

Grade: A-

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

This excellent book is a brilliantly researched and well written history of the lives of these two radicals, their iron principles, honest fears, and glorious angsts.

Even more than Ellis’s American Sphinx this book delves into the details of the Adams-Jefferson life-long debating match. Most relevant to America today is their debate about the danger of “aristocracy” which today consists of, among others: Steven Schwartzman, John Paulson, Robert Mercer, Steven Wynn, Rupert Murdoch, Paul Elliot Singer, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, David Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, Bill Ackman, Nelson Peltz, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel. (Please add as you feel appropriate.)

Here are excerpts:

Adams: No society can rid itself of aristocracy. “It is entailed on us forever.” All we can do is manage our aristocrats, but they were “the most difficult Animals to manage” in every kind of government. “They not only exert all their own Subtilty, Industry and courage, but they employ the Commonality to knock to pieces every Plan and Model that the most honest Architects in Legislation can invent to keep them within bounds.” And unfortunately, said Adams, the aristocrats were usually not the best men in the society. “Birth and Wealth together have prevailed over Virtue and Talents in all ages.”

Amen.

Adams continues on natural equality: “Inequalities of Mind and Body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of Human Nature that no Art or policy can ever plain them down to a Level.” The only equality that Adams would admit was equality before the law. …

Jefferson responds to Adams: “You think it best to put the Pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation where they may be hindered from doing mischief by the coordinate branches, and where they may be a protection to wealth against the Agrarian and plundering enterprises of the Majority of the people.” This was a mistaken, he told Adams. Giving the wealthy aristocrats power in order to prevent them from doing mischief was “arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil.” The best remedy was to let the citizens in free elections separate the natural aristocrats from the pseudo-aristocrats, the wheat from the chaff. “In general, they will elect the real good and wise.” Only in a few instances would the citizens be corrupted by wealth and birth, but never enough to endanger the society. …

Me, looking at Congress today: BWAHAHAHAHA! (It’s another case of laughing through my tears.)

I prefer Adams, who saw through the bullsh*t that Jefferson was too idealistic to see.

Adams, in his defense of the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials in 1770: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Adams did not deny the existence of “human Reason and human Conscience,” but he thought they were “not a Match, for human Passions, human Imaginations and human Enthusiasm.” All the passions of ambition, avarice, love, resentment, and so on, he told Jefferson, possessed so much subtlety and eloquence “that they insinuate themselves into the Understanding and the Conscience and convert both to their Party.” …

“Ambition is one of the more ungovernable Passions of the human Heart,” he said in 1772. “The Love of Power is insatiable and uncontrollable.” In retirement, he was repeating the same thing to Jefferson. “Power always thinks it has a great Soul, and vast Views, beyond the Comprehension of the Weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his Laws.”

So when we watch what our modern aristocrats are doing—who and what they support and why—we should watch very, VERY, closely.

[Deacon Tom (Feeling Better) · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Marvelous Look Into History.

This was a great book. Yes, it was very large but it was worth the time spent on it. The time allowed me to re flect on the well developed points.

There are multiple lessons for today. It shows it is possible for political rivals to come together occasionally. I would strongly suggest Ms Pelosi and her Republican counter part consume the lessons of this book. Our country would be greater if they did.

The amazing irony was they died on the same day. Exactly 50 years after the singing of the Declaration of Independence.

The book is marvelously researched and reads much like a mm obel in parts. As an wannabe historian,. I loved this book.

I highly recommend for history buffs.

[Brian Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many students of American history will no doubt know by now the miraculous (though Adams and Jefferson would have hated that term) occurrence of their concurrent deaths within a matter of hours on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826. Many scholars and biographers will also have keyed in on the amazing correspondence between the two in their waning, retired years. But it may be a little surprising to realize that nobody has attempted a major concurrent biography of both our 2nd and 3rd Presidents.

Gordon Wood, as he always does, takes this a whole step further and writes the definitive book on the political philosophy of these two titans. This book is essential to anybody wanting to truly understand the Revolutionary era without the filter of political bias of blustering talk show analysts who appropriate the words of Adams and Jefferson for their own ends without any knowledge of their complexity. Wood does cover biographical facts, but this is really a book of their thoughts and their evolving political theories and influences. He draws heavily on the primary sources of the newly completed volumes of their collected papers. Though all of the above may sound like it could be horribly dry, it is absolutely fascinating in Wood's hands, an accomplished writer. While I don't want to spoil too many of the discoveries in the 433 pages here, any understanding of what America truly is is revealed by the dialogue - often literally - between these two who found themselves on the opposing ends of the political spectrum. Adams believed that humans are essentially flawed and needed checks and balances by their government in certain cases. Jefferson was a fatally flawed idealist who believed in truly unlimited, unhindered democracy; the people will make the right, wise choices (2016 alone proved him wrong). The book only gets better as it goes along, ending with the post mortem of Adams and Jefferson from 1812-1826 in their personal correspondence. Some of those conclusions might shock. But they are a pleasure of this book I won't spoil.

There are great books on Adams (McCullough's biography springs immediately to mind). Plenty of great books on Jefferson (Ellis and Meachem are just a few). But by placing them side by side, the view is much more broad and illuminating. An essential work.

[Dustin Lovell · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent account of the nation's first generation told through the struggling friendship of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Examines the two presidents through their respective reputations, including both how they got them then and why aspects have stayed until now. Abigail Adams is the unnamed third character in the book, and John is given an implicit focus as the older and yet less well known Founder.

[Jill Meyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

On July 4, 1826, 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia, two men died. One, Thomas Jefferson, died at Monticello in Virginia, while the other, John Adams, died far away in Boston. Both men had been presidents of the United States, and since the country was not in the instant communication we have today, neither man knew of the other's impending death. In his superb new history, "Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson", Gordon Wood takes a detailed look at the lives and how each man's strengths and weaknesses influenced our new country.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were, in many ways, polar opposites in both personality and upbringing. One was a slave-owning Southerner and the other was a Northerner, who deplored the idea of one man owning another. One had a charming, if somewhat melancholy demeanor where the other was a no-nonsense kind of man. But both were brilliant and were devoted to the cause of American independence from Great Britain. And after independence, the two were involved in setting up our governing system. Gordon Wood takes a penetrating look at both men and the times they lived in, He's a smooth writer and the book is excellent.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ivy League, classic historian Gordon S. Wood gives us a double biography of two enormous figures in the founding of the nation, who ironically, died on the same day, July fourth, 1826, the 50th anniversary of our founding as a nation...Basically, the biographies can be divided into their four components: 1) The making of revolutionaries (their disparate background that merge into the movement), 2)The forging of a nation (their contributions and developing friendships), The falling out (their developing enmity) and 4) the reconciliation (their renewed friendship)...Decent, informative read, but little new here!

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: An account of the sometimes troubled and unlikely friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

They could not be more different in many respects. One irascible, the other sophisticated. One a modestly successful New England lawyer and farmer. The other a southern plantation owner. One inclined toward aristocracy. The other toward people. One was a prosaic writer, the other had a gift for elevated prose.

They also shared some things in common. Both were inveterate readers, among the most widely read of their times. Both knew tragedy in their lives. They came together around declaring their country’s independence from England. They worked together to foster their country’s relationship with France. Both were part of the first administration of George Washington, and both in turn were presidents.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Gordon S. Wood has written here what may be the definitive account of this friendship that spanned over 50 years, ending July 4, 1826, when both men died on the Jubilee anniversary of the country’s Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Jefferson and signed by both of them. He traces the parallel courses of their lives, the differences and misunderstandings that frayed their early friendship, and the wonderful reconciliation of their latter years giving us one an exceptional correspondence (perhaps rivaled only by that between John and Abigail Adams).

Wood begins with the very different circumstances in which they grew up, their early careers and marriages and then recounts the crisis that brought them together as signers, and then emissaries for their fledgling country in France. Adams it seemed, never understood French ways, nor had he the skills to negotiate them well. Jefferson did, so much so that he fell in love with the country. Adams always remembered his American commitments. All this becomes evident in their very different assessments of the French Revolution. We see the first signs of strain here–the monarchical tendencies of Adams, the republican ones of Jefferson, who could not see the dangers of revolution.

These strains became worse in Washington’s administration as fault lines between what became known as the Federalists and the Democrat Republicans became evident and worsened when Adams became president and Jefferson vice-president. Adams inclined toward the Federalists, although was never fully one of them, costing him the next election. Jefferson believed in the people. About the only thing the two agreed on is that they both distrusted Hamilton.

Wood covers the campaign of 1800 in which Adams lost to Jefferson. The charges and countercharges appeared to cost them their friendship. It was perhaps the first truly contentious campaign, revealing the emergence of parties. If anything the misunderstandings between Abigail and Jefferson, especially over the Alien and Sedition Act, was even worse. Jefferson and Adams wouldn’t speak for another decade.

A mutual friend, physician Benjamin Rush, played the key role of clearing the way for the famous correspondence of these two men, each explaining himself to the other. Wood recounts this developing correspondence and the most famous passages between the two. He also narrates the shift in fortunes of the two from Jefferson acclaimed while Adams forgotten to Jefferson’s financial difficulties in his last years and Adam’s increasing esteem in the eyes of his countrymen, particularly after the election of John Quincy to the presidency in 1824. Jefferson became more pessimistic about the unfolding commercial trends in the country while Adams became more sanguine.

Wood deeply regards both of his subjects, but in the end is drawn to the expansive mind of Jefferson and his vision of forging one nation out of all the varieties of people that make up our country. Yet I found myself wondering if in fact his book articulates the need we have as a nation for both kinds of leaders, both those with lofty visions and those of rock-ribbed integrity with two feet firmly planted in American soil, both those who believe in the people, and those who value institutions, and recognize the existing inequalities of people who enjoy equal rights. Without Adams, Jefferson was inclined to build “castles in the air.” Without Jefferson, Adams may have tried to fashion himself a monarch. Perhaps what Wood has given us in the story of these two men is a parable for our country, especially in this divided time.

[R.F. Gammon]

a very accessible take on very complex subject matter

[thethousanderclub · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson commented: "These people [publishers, journalists] think they have a right to everything however secret or sacred." I admit I felt a small pang of shame. I voraciously read Adams and Jefferson's correspondents, along with reading about every detail of their lives, every emotional reaction, every personal stumble, and every courageous stand. Especially in Jefferson's case, I don't think he would have appreciated this. Yet, the modern student is greatly benefited by reading about not only the public personae's of extraordinary individuals like Adams and Jefferson but also their personal interactions, including their feuds but especially their reconciliation.

Several years ago I read The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood. It is a historically, ideologically, and philosophically dense book. I'm not sure I was quite ready to read it when I did; in fact, I'm still not sure I would be ready to read it! Regardless, I recognized its value and still do, as well as the important contribution that Wood made to the study of American history. In Friends Divided we find another dense book of historical complexity. In addition, it's a deeply personal book. Rather than simply recounting pedestrian facts about two remarkable individuals, Wood does the hard work of filling the history with pathos, personal motivations, emotions, and variety. As historical subjects go, Adams and Jefferson provide a magnificent juxtaposition. Adams was bold, pugnacious, honest, mercurial, and brilliant. Jefferson was restrained but slick, private, focused, often short-sighted, and also brilliant. As Wood points out, these two men in many ways represent the poles of the American Revolution and its inherent tension. Their friendship, once battered and suspended, is eventually healed, which gives hope to us in a polarized and bruising time.

Friends Divided is a concentrated book of historical significance. It doesn't only delve into an intimate portrait of Adams and Jefferson but also examines with noticeable skill the ideological and philosophical debates that drove these men and their contemporaries. Due to this, the book might leave some readers behind. As I mentioned previously, I wasn't quite ready for The Radicalism of the American Revolution, and I fear some readers might feel perplexed by Wood's ideological scope. I loved these elements of the book, however. Jefferson's magnificent contributions, as well as his logical delinquencies, can only be truly appreciated by getting our arms around the most pervasive and influential ideas of his time. How could there be so much ethical and moral contradiction in one man? For the same reason it exists in us. Understanding the time, place, and intellectual and moral atmosphere of the founders' epoch brings a welcome complexity. Friends Divided succeeds impresively in this regard.

Yet, in the end, the tender and stirring core of this book is the reconciliation between Adams and Jefferson. It's a deeply personal story, one which involves hurt feelings, wounded pride, and the ugliness of human nature. In the course of events, especially when the stakes are high (or perceived to be so), we can hurt each other terribly. The great mystery is how to let go, how to forgive, how to disagree peaceably and cordially. The founding generation struggled with civility in the same way we do, I think; albeit, I believe we have civically deteriorated quite a bit in the past few years. Although they disagreed vehemently on deeply significant issues, Adams and Jefferson were able to come to an appreciation for each other's perspective and intelligence; having said that, I think the dynamic of their relationship shows that the mild nature of Jefferson was necessary to counter-balance Adams's excitable one. One of the parties in a disagreement, it appears, must be willing to cede more ground than another. Or, at the very least, be willing to tacitly disagree and resist engaging in a perpetual struggle. Sometimes polemical victory must be sacrificed on the altar of goodwill and friendship.

I really enjoyed Friends Divided. It added several lovely layers to my existing knowledge of American history and the American Revolution. The book's density might intimidate some readers, but the enrichment it offers is well worth the effort. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are indispensable personalities who were intimately involved in the commencement of the grand American experiment of self-government. Their ideas, although often in contrast to each other, formed governments and even culture. Their personal relationship reflects the best and worst of our natures. Their story and friendship is a beautiful reflection of humanity; it's a story worth telling.

http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/

[Priscilla · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven't been much of a fan of Jefferson's since I started reading books about him. Adams, on the otherhand, had the opposite affect on me. I chalked up Jefferson worship to the shallowness of humans and the ease with which good-looking people navigate life, no matter what their other failings are. Jefferson was tall, blue-eyed, and incredibly handsome. He had a politeness of manner that verged on obsession. He famously hated controversy, confrontation, or anger. He was the Virginia Gentleman to his core, a superstar. He comes across in history as hypocritical, insincere, devious, and underhanded; but during his life he was one of the most beloved Americans of all time. Adams, on the other hand, was short, stout, not handsome, bombastic, ill-tempered, vain, temperamental, and unloved. What you saw was what you got with Adams. However, Adams was mostly right, and Jefferson was mostly wrong about all of the major issues of the day: slavery, the French Revolution, human nature, the need for a strong central government, the superiority of industrial v. agrarian societies, tariffs and embargoes as a substitute for war (consequently, there was no need for a standing army or a navy), the Federalists. Adams was wrong about the Alien and Sedition Acts and neither man believed in Hamilton, paper money and banks; but on balance, Adams was smarter and more right about everything than Jefferson, yet Jefferson is the one history rewards. It's the difference between boundless optimism and endless pessimism; what was true about the nation verses what it wanted/needed to hear; soaring leadership toward lofty goals vs. a national scold. It is the reason Jefferson is evoked to this day: all of that naive, wide-eyed, rose-colored glasses optimism about a nation that is never going to be what Jefferson envisioned, but will never stop trying as long as he is remembered and his successors keep invoking his memory and his words. For this insight into the sanctity of Jefferson, Gordon S. Wood gets five stars.

[Alex Guiden · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished reading Friends Divided: John Adams & Thomas Jefferson by Gordon S. Wood. It’s a riveting account about the genesis of the American experiment and the acrimonious friendship between our nation’s 2nd & 3rd presidents. After eagerly devouring every page of this delightful book, I came to admire the ideals of Adams and the disposition of Jefferson.

[Cameron H · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Adams deserves a monument on the National Mall! It should be him standing in front of a chair with Abigail by his side. Oh! And he should also be “mistakenly” sculpted to look like William Daniels just piss off his ghost.

[Scott Hitchcock · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*'s.

The author interjects a lot of his own opinions on their relationship and legacy. Some of which I agree with some I don't. Overall a good accounting of the events.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Adams' (and Abigail) and Thomas Jefferson's friendship was the best thing (in my opinion) to come out of the Revolutionary period. It just amazing how two completely different people were able to form such a strong bond, only to be torn apart by politics.

The text, while generally in chronological order, was more by topics and how their views differed or where they agreed. It was well researched and the audio book well narrated. I look forward to reading more of his Revolutionary History books in the future.

The most fascinating part for me was the very last part of the epilogue, which explains why Jefferson is so well known by Americans, while Adams fell on the way side. I always thought it was a shame that Adams did so much for the country and is one of the most least remembered of the Founding Fathers. It turns out that Jefferson's enthusiasm and naivety about America's future made his words attractive to Abraham Lincoln, as a way to justify the Civil War. Adams, it turns out was too cynical (but right).

Highly Recommended

[Henry Gendt · Rating 4 out of 5]

During these hyperpolarized political times, it's interesting to get perspective about the rancorous nature of American politics dating back to our country's founding. While we might feel like our time is unique, America has been through challenging times before and always emerges stronger. While the current polarizing news channels of 2020 continue to pull our country apart, reading a book like Friends Divided will put in perspective what it means to be American. While we might disagree on various political issues, working through these differences with constructive dialogue and compromise always beats verbal food fights. Seeing the peaceful and emotional positive resolution between two political enemies like John Adam and Thomas Jefferson is truly inspirational, two men who fought like nails for their beliefs throughout life, but died, on the same day, as the best of friends. #America

- Henry Gindt

[Jillian Doherty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like Churchill and Orwell this awesome duel biography highlights not only both men's journeys, but illustrates how they became who they were because of their relationship.

Although these founding fathers loathed each other - for having opposing personalities and political affiliation, but as they formed the country, they also formed a deeper understanding and appreciation for each other.

If we could have more driven focus and tolerance today, we might also better understand how looking in the past as much to teach is the better future.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is not so much the story of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams' friendship as it is Gordon Woods defense of why he prefers Jeffersonian philosophy over Adams. He glosses over nearly every fault and failure of Jefferson, while seemingly delighting in Adams' failures. This is nowhere quite as clear as when discussing slavery, in which Woods somehow attempts to show Jefferson's views on slavery as more progressive than Adams. Woods' preference for Jefferson over Adams would be tolerable if he wasn't so blind to Jefferson's own imperfections - not to mention spending the last chapter of the book attempting to prove why Jefferson's legacy is greater than Adams.

[Mary Kan · Rating 5 out of 5]

We honor Jefferson not Adams

This book set forth the different philosophies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Basically, Jefferson was optimistic and a bit naive. Adams was skeptical and realistic. This book explores the lives, friendship and political philosophies of two of the founding fathers. I found it very interesting!

[Heath Kirkwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book itself does much more than offer a biography of Adams and Jefferson, as well as their friendship. It also explores deeply the invention of the United States of America, and how these two intersected with the country and one another. Props to the author for taking on, laying out, and speaking to such a full project. The audible version made this a daunting listen, nevertheless a good listen. As one who has favored Adams over Jefferson, I continue to lean this way, while also saddened over their similar lacking beliefs and approaches.

[Thomas Lindmark · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to read a book on The American revolution for a while now since it is a period in history that I only have a very basic foundation on and I felt I needed to expand on the subject. It is an extraordinary time that re-shaped the world after all.

I could not have picked a better book. Friends Divided, follows the principal founders John Adams and Thomas Jefferson from their earliest years, to young adulthood, retelling their idealistic revolutionary years, Independence, service abroad in Britain and France, their time as POTUS, the rise of partisan US party-politics and how it creates division and rivalry between them. Following up to their retirement and their reconciliation at old age.

It was educational and fascinating to read about how these two men of fundamentally different outlook on life acted and reflected on each other and the events in the new young Republic.

We have the Virginia Aristocratic Patriarch Slave owner contrasted with the New England Lawyer/Farmer with a Wife of equal intellectual standing to himself.

Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and saw himself as an enlightened and sophisticated man-of-the-world, who dreamed of the rights of men, feared the monarchic powers and supported the French Revolution which ended in a Napoleonic Empire and a Europe in chaos. John Adams, the-ever-realist, who very early recognized that all men are not created equal, and saw the monarchy as a check on the ambitions of the abuse of the aristocracy (the wealthy) and worked tirelessly to set up legal frameworks and constitutions with checks and balances. All to keep the ambitions of the power hungry in check.

They both witnessed the first 50 years of the young republic. That is a lot of time to see young revolutionary dreams and theories come and pass and reality set in.

Personally I found John Adams to be the more genuine of the two, although I can see how the Jeffersonian (I have a dream!) built a stronger following among the American public over the centuries, than John Adams (Oh, you are all going to screw this up, mark my words) outlook on life.

The book is well written and concise, in chapters that contrasts the two men and their environment. It is also personal, since these two men where friends, lived abroad at the same time, entertained each others children and corresponded via letters their whole life.

Important thing to note is that this is a book is specifically about these to men. Not a history of the American Revolution, I'm sure there are other books to read about that subject.

[Ted Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very useful book to read if one is interested in the philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution. Jefferson and Adams were two members of the "committee" that worked to produce the Declaration of Independence, although it is clear that the two men had some rather significant differences about what the revolution meant and what the proper nature of the American government should be. The book is not really about their personal, face-to-face relationship, because for most of their lives it was either conducted from afar, through letters, or it did not exist at all due to their falling out when Jefferson served as Adams' vice president. A more accurate, if ponderous, sub-title might have been "the philosophical differences of Adams and Jefferson and how they wrote letters to each other." Gordon Wood, the nation's greatest scholar of the Revolutionary period, once again shows his genius in getting to the real heart of the issues, as he distills the respective philosophies of these two men into a couple of key differences: Jefferson was an optimist about human nature, while Adams was a pessimist (which explains, among other things, Jefferson's abiding belief in democracy), and Jefferson truly believed in American exceptionalism, while Adams did not. In the end, Wood agrees with the verdict of history that Jefferson had the much greater impact on the nation's story, for while Adams was anxious about the future of a nation with such a mixture of races, ethnicities and religions, Jefferson accurately saw the nation as being bound together through its allegiance to a set of ideas. All that being said, I once again emerged from reading a book about Jefferson not really feeling any great affection for the man. He continues to come across to me as insincere and grossly hypocritical about the institution of slavery. How could someone who wrote so vigorously to condemn the institution continue to participate in its evils? What prevented him from freeing his slaves? His concern about what would lay in store for them? Concerns about his standing in Virginia society? His precarious financial situation? Whatever the reason, I find him a coward. And thus, despite the author's verdict that Jefferson was the more important man, I find Adams to have been the more honest and morally consistent person.

[Matthew Hyde · Rating 5 out of 5]

So I fortunate enough to win the historical book Friends Divided in the goodreads giveaway. This book was excellent from front to back. Gordon S. Wood does an amazing job of covering the important details and thoughts of both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams during such events as the American Revolution, French Revolution, the Presidencies of both men, and their lives after politics. Wood I felt was fair in keeping a balance of the two men, and did not show favoritism toward one rather than the other. In fact he shows the weaknesses and strengths both of these men exhibited through their personal and political lives. What one can gather from reading this book is that Adams was at times a little too outspoken, while Jefferson was very patient and was careful how he expressed himself. I liked how Wood used the letters which these two men wrote to each other, friends, and family to show the reader how these men really thought and felt. Wood kept it factually and not opinionated by doing so. For me personally, what I enjoyed about this book the most is the detailed account of America's history. Wood does a very in depth revealing of facts showing the reader how America came to be mostly due to the influence of such men such as Adams and Jefferson. Its hard to grasp at the thought that the roots of America's Civil War, our political parties that Americans still see today, and how an American thinks and acts started at the very early stages of America early years. One last point I would like to make is that the book is very easy to read and Wood keeps the reader attached throughout. Wood's book is a historical book worms dream. Thank you for the good read.

[Robert Melnyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book details the relationship, both personal and political, between two or our most famous founding fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These two men came from different backgrounds and differing political views, but were close friends during the early days of the American Revolution. However, their differences led to a bitter rivalry and the end of their friendship, epitomized by the election of 1800, perhaps the most nasty and divisive presidential election in the history of our nation (and that includes the election of 2016 :-) ). Fortunately, after years of not speaking, they were able to reconcile and ended up corresponding with each other through letters during the final years of their lives. I still find it eerie that they both died on the same day, July 4, 1826, 50 years to the day from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The book also gives an opinion as to why Jefferson is honored in Washington D.C. with a memorial while Adams is not. Very interesting.

[Erin Cadwalader · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides both a side by comparison of Adams and Jefferson's views on a wide range of topics as well as an examination of their friendship, which is interesting in and of itself. However, while Wood has in no way provided any commentary on the politics of today, it seemed written with an eye towards some of the current challenges to democracy underway. I think it could have been a bit more succinct, as Wood frequently tells you what someone thought in his own words and then uses their quotes to reinforce his message, but nobody can fault him for not being thorough. I also am now mulling over the idea of a play set in Paris focused on Franklin and Adams during their diplomatic service over there as a comedy with Franklin, embracing the joie de vivre, and Adams, scowling and judging.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent portrayal of two Founding Fathers whose passions and personalities differed significantly but nevertheless helped form the basis of the American Government from its birth through its early years.

We can learn much from them. Even though they held completely different political views they were able to work through differences for the common good. Their relationship was rocky at times but in the end they remained friends.