John Adams: A Life

by John Ferling

John Ferling has nearly forty years of experience as a historian of early America. The author of acclaimed histories such as A Leap into the Dark and Almost a Miracle , he has appeared on many TV and film documentaries on this pivotal period of our history. In John Adams: A Life , Ferling offers a compelling portrait of one of the giants of the Revolutionary era.

Drawing on extensive research, Ferling depicts a reluctant revolutionary, a leader who was deeply troubled by the warfare that he helped to make, and a fiercely independent statesman. The book brings to life an exciting time, an age in which Adams played an important political and intellectual role. Indeed, few were more instrumental in making American independence a reality. He performed yeoman's service in the Continental Congress during the revolution and was a key figure in negotiating the treaty that brought peace following the long War of Independence. He held the highest office in the land and as president he courageously chose to pursue a course that he thought best for the nation, though it was fraught with personal political dangers. Adams emerges here a man full of contradictions. He could be petty and jealous, but also meditative, insightful, and provocative. In private and with friends he could be engagingly witty. He was terribly self-centered, but in his relationship
with his wife and children his shortcomings were tempered by a deep, abiding love.

John Ferling's masterful John Adams: A Life is a singular biography of the man who succeeded George Washington in the presidency and shepherded the fragile new nation through the most dangerous of times.

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

535 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

John E. Ferling is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. A leading authority on American Revolutionary history, he is the author of several books, including "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic", "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence", and his most recent work, "The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon". He has appeared in television documentaries on PBS, the History Channel, C-SPAN Book TV, and the Learning Channel.

Reviews

[Micah Cummins · Rating 4 out of 5]

1st book of 2023

RTC

[Aaron Million · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Adams, while not forgotten by any means, seldom comes first to mind when thinking of the Founding Fathers. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson tend to occupy the top branches of that tree, with Washington holding the highest perch. Adams is a titan in his own right though, according to John Ferling, and should be more well-known today than he is. It should be noted that this biography predates David McCullough's excellent book on Adams, which rekindled interest in him. And I am glad it does pre-date McCullough as Ferling repeatedly refers back to what previous biographers said about Adams in certain circumstances, and whether or not he agrees with their analysis.

Adams was one dour individual, and I think that might be one reason why he is not better remembered today. Instead of lofty writings about the potential for mankind, like Jefferson, Adams focused on the inherent flaws and baseness of people and how too much power in the hands of the people would be a bad thing. Adams went too far in this train of thought even in his own time, as he came close to wanting a almost a monarchy without the monarch. He also distrusted the general populace enough to only allow them limited ability to choose their own representatives. Given what has happened in the last several years here, I can't say that Adams was wholly incorrect.

Ferling reviews Adams from birth to death, devoting equal amounts of time to his professional and personal lives. He argues that Adams did not start out, unlike his cousin Samuel Adams, as a fervent patriot. Ferling believes that Adams's radicalism grew over time as Britain compounded snub after snub to the colonies. Adams then began a period where he frequently left his wife, Abigail, alone for long periods of time while he toiled first in Philadelphia, and then all over Europe. As Ferling notes on page 175: "Without realizing it, John Adams had grown to be a one-dimensional man.... He stood as the "first man" in the Congress... But his achievements had come at a high cost. By his middle years he was a man with little time for his family, a man given to incessant labor who disavowed virtually all earthly pleasures and distractions, an individual unable to function in certain social settings, a restricted human being whose goal was the solitary pursuit of self-fulfillment, a fulfillment that could only be realized through a popular recognition that John Adams was indeed a great man."

Ferling, while mostly even-handed in his treatment of Adams, generally holds a positive view of him. That does not mean that he shies away from Adams's flaws, of which there were many. He certainly documents them. But I don't think he ever went far enough in some of his criticism. A good example of this is Adams as a father. While it might be strange to say this given that John Quincy Adams ultimately became President too, Adams didn't do a very good job (that goes for Abigail too). Charles drank himself to death, leaving his wife and children to live with Adams in his later years. Thomas was an unsuccessful and unhappy man, weighed down by the pressure from his parents to amount to something big while also having an alcohol problem. Their only daughter, Nabby, had her life all screwed up by her parents as well. They shot down her first romantic interest because they thought her potential husband was feckless and would leave their daughter in straightened circumstances. So instead Abigail brings her to Europe with her, and then her and John subsequently encourage her to marry Stephen Smith, who turns out to be feckless, forever short on cash and blundering from one get-rich-quick scheme to another. She ended up staying with her parents once Adams retired.

And then there is John Quincy. While Ferling doesn't say this, both John and Abigail were scolds to him. He was weighed down with such lofty expectations that, unless he actually became President, he would view himself as a failure (and they may have thought so too). I don't want to say that Ferling doesn't touch on this, because he does. And I'm not saying he needed to dwell on it either. But I think it was a bigger issue than he made it seem.

Adams spent eight years as Vice President to Washington. During much of this time, he did not stay in the capitol of Philadelphia. He usually was only there when Congress was in session. Now, granted, he didn't have anything else to do under the Constitution. However, by removing himself from being near the seat of power, if Washington did want an opinion from him on a subject, he generally wasn't around to give it. Adams inexplicably did this while he was President as well: spend more time back home in Braintree (later Quincy) than in Philadelphia. Consequently, his administration suffered for his absent leadership as he allowed disloyal Cabinet officers to plot against him. Ferling, again, mentions this but does not really criticize Adams for not taking more of a forceful, in-person presence.

Ferling reviews Adams's relationships with some other major figures (Franklin, Washington) closely but then seems strangely uninterested in others (Samuel Adams, and even Jefferson to an extent). After losing to Jefferson in the 1800 election, Adams leaves town the morning of Jefferson's inauguration, refusing to witness the swearing-in ceremony or meeting with Jefferson at all that day. Ferling simply mentions this at the end of a chapter, but provides no commentary. How can you not comment on that? That sure seems like someone who is a sore loser and can't accept defeat with magnanimity.

Ferling finishes with a good epilogue reviewing Adams's life and career. I appreciate that he did not just end the book with Adams's death. One final note: there were numerous grammatical mistakes throughout the book. I was surprised that so many got through the editing process, and of a paperback edition no less.

Overall this is a judicious, objective review of a major figure in American history. I think McCullough made Adams out to be better than he probably was. Ferling does not go that far, but he is still positive about Adams despite usually (not always) recognizing his plethora of flaws.

Grade: B+

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...

"John Adams: A Life" is the fifth of nearly a dozen books authored by John Ferling, who has written extensively on the revolutionary era and several of its most important figures. This biography was first published in 1992 and has received consistently high marks since, although its popularity has faded somewhat in recent years as several additional biographies of our second president have been published.

Ferling's biography of John Adams is almost the perfect balance of detail versus brevity, of hard facts prudently dosed with the author's opinions and conclusions. The author's descriptive capability is on consistent display and set the context in most scenes magnificently. Much to my surprise, as this is the fourth book on Adams I've read thus far, Ferling provides relevant and interesting insights throughout the book that I do not recall encountering elsewhere.

In contrast to his more recent biography of George Washington, Ferling's work on Adams is not only thorough and colorful, but also well-balanced and non-combative. His books of our first two presidents considered together, one senses Ferling's disappointment that history has relegated Adams' to the "near great" category of presidents (for a variety of reasons he well explains) while elevating Washington to more exalted status, in part on the basis of being a reluctant hero (a concept with which the author vigorously disagrees).

A bit of a bonus, "John Adams: A Life" incorporates several short sketches throughout the book on other important figures of the era, such as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin. These introductions added unique color, character and additional context, and laid the groundwork for analysis and conclusions to come later in the book.

Compared to the other biographies on Adams I've read, Ferling is the least friendly to Adams and his relationship with Abigail. McCullough, Smith and Ellis each show a warmer, more consistent relationship between the John and Abigail, but Ferling's case seems well argued in any event. Having not read the source material for myself, I don't have an informed view on which perspective is more accurate. As is often the case, the truth is probably not as romantic as some would like, but may not be as harsh as Ferling depicts.

Perhaps my favorite aspect of Ferling's biography of Adams (other than its judicious use of the reader's time without diminishing its ability to be both thorough and penetrating) is the set of analyses and conclusions left behind in the final pages. Ferling tackles the subject of Adams' "greatness" (or lack thereof) and critically examines the role of Adams' personality, his actions while president and luck (or misfortune), as well as the evolution of history's perspective on the topic. Again, in contrast to his analysis of Washington which I found strident and one-sided, his approach to Adams is balanced and considered.

Overall, "John Adams: A Life" proves itself a fantastic biography of Adams. It serves not only as an excellent introduction to the second president, but also as quite a complete treatment of him as well. Ferling is not quite the storyteller of, say, McCullough, whose work on Adams proved a somewhat better story, but not a better biography. But in the end, while not quite perfect and admittedly somewhat aged, "John Adams: A Life" was nothing short of outstanding.

Overall rating: 4¾ stars

[Daniel Ligon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ferling's biography offers an excellent perspective of John Adams. I read McCullough's better known bio a few months ago, and of the two, I slightly prefer Ferling's. McCullough's book is excellent, a page-turning, sweeping narrative that tells rather than analyzes John Adams' life. Ferling, while not as good of a story-teller, shines in explaining the way Adams thought and what motivated him. Ferling gives a philosophical and topical examination of Adams and his times rather than a strictly chronological story. For example, Ferling does a great job explaining the political context of colonial Massachusetts. Later on, Ferling shows the clear philosophical differences between the Federalists and Republicans in a way that I had not fully grasped before. A bonus of the book is that Ferling gives brief biographical sketches of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamilton as they are introduced to the story. The highlight of the book for me was the afterword, where Ferling examines Adams' thoughts on greatness and the significance of his life's work, and then offers his own analysis of Adams' greatness and most important achievements. I would agree with Ferling in his ranking of Adams just below Washington, but on a level with Franklin and Jefferson as the greatest Americans of their era.

[Cheyne · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is universally admitted that Mr. Adams is a man of incorruptible integrity, and that the resources of his mind are equal to the duties of his station.”

[Lisa (Harmonybites) · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Eric Sevigny · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book started as a real sleeper after reading Chernow’s biography on Washington. Part of it was that the treatment of the revolutionary War was so much better in Chernow. However, the book picked up considerably with Adams’s experiences as a diplomat in Europe during and after the Revolutionary War. IN the end, a good read.

[Andy Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book with a lack of style or deep insight.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Tim Callicutt · Rating 5 out of 5]

[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!

[Jameson Scappaticci · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read, but the main character dies.

[Darrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Adams smoked tobacco since he was eight. He received a Harvard education and after being a teacher for a short time, he became a lawyer. At one point, the wealthy John Hancock was put on trial for smuggling and John Adams represented him, succeeding in getting the charges dropped. He started courting his future wife Abigail when she was 15 and he was 25. He stopped seeing her, but they met again years later and married when he was 29 and she was 20.

Britain had a 173 million pound debt from the French and Indian War as well as three other wars fought on America's behalf and passed the Stamp Act to help pay this debt. While the colonists benefited from the wars, they didn't want to help pay for them and strongly opposed the Stamp Act.

John Adams wrote political essays against the Stamp Act, but he was also against his cousin Samuel Adams' violent demonstrations. When the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, John gained some reputation, being elected selectman in his hometown of Braintree. His cousin Sam Adams meanwhile, founded the Whig party which launched a propaganda campaign to try to convince people Britain wanted to take away the colonists' freedom.

Adams referred to himself as short, thick, and fat, although he was likely average height. He often had red watery eyes, likely due to chronic allergies. He was pallid due to spending so much time indoors. He had a volcanic temper. He was cold to strangers, but warm with friends and he preferred solitude.

Due to protests against taxes, British soldiers were sent to Boston. Tension increased as the soldiers took part-time jobs away from the colonists and also dated their women. Several violent encounters erupted between soldiers and colonists. In 1770, soldiers killed five Bostonians in what was called the Boston Massacre. Adams defended the soldiers, despite not being on their side and the possibility rioters would go after him. Why? No one knows for sure, but he was given a seat in Boston's legislature three months later, so perhaps Samuel Adams promised him political office. He won the trial and his reputation didn't suffer either. In fact, Britain recalled their troops and did away with most of the taxes (except for one on tea).

John Adams decided he didn't like politics and didn't seek reelection. His law practice was booming. He covered a wide variety of cases from commercial transactions, criminal defense, property disputes, defamation of character cases, tax cases, divorce, and served as counsel for slaves who sought their freedom.

The East India Company, the largest Mercantile firm in the British Empire, was nearly bankrupt through mismanagement. If it failed, there would be a general economic collapse. To prevent this from happening, Parliament passed the Tea Act, giving the East India Company a monopoly on tea in the colonies and keeping the tea tax already in place. It actually made the price of tea lower by cutting out the middleman.

The fading independence movement was waiting for something to rebel against and latched onto this. They said this would lead to other taxes and that the monopoly would hurt American businesses. Boats bearing tea were not permitted to dock in New York and Philadelphia. South Carolina prevented the tea from being sold. In Boston, the rebels destroyed 1 million dollars worth of tea in today's dollars at their "tea party". Adams didn't take part, but praised the event.

Parliament retaliated against Boston with the Coercive Acts. The port in Boston would be closed until the tea was paid for. Town meetings were restricted and the elected council would be replaced with a Crown-appointed one. The colonists responded with a trade embargo against Britain knowing it would likely lead to war. In 1775, the British attempted to suppress the rebellion by force and tried to seize the leaders of the rebels. 73 British and nearly 100 colonists died in Concord and Lexington.

Adams was a key player in the first two Continental Congresses. They raised an army against Britain with Washington as general. King George III declared them in a state of rebellion. The Earl of Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, offered to free all slaves who joined the British side. There were still some in Congress hoping to reconcile with Great Britain. Adams worked to change votes and on July 2, 1776, no state voted against independence. Congress made some changes to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence which was ready by July 4th.

In his writings, Adams often expressed his wish to be a soldier, yet when the opportunity arose, he came up with excuses not to. He did however become the de facto Secretary of War, working from 4 AM to 10 PM on logistical problems, promotions, appointments, recruitment, and treatment and exchange of prisoners of war.

Abigail Adams became a talented farmer while John was away, which was often. She told him to "Remember the Ladies" as Congress discussed the rights of Americans since men were "Naturally Tyrannical" women must be protected from men's "unlimited power". However, John didn't take her seriously. Like John, she was opposed to slavery. He didn't talk about slavery politically, though, since slave holders had a lot of power and influence.

After leaving Congress, Adams spent a bit of time at home before leaving again as a diplomat to France, which had been providing supplies and soldiers to America. While in France, he lived under the same roof as fellow diplomat Benjamin Franklin, but grew to hate him. Adams was highly intelligent, but made a bad diplomat as small talk wasn't his strong point. 

He returned to Braintree after a year and wrote the first draft of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. Congress then voted to make him minister plenipotentiary, to negotiate an end of the war with Great Britain. Once again, he set out for France and left Abigail behind, but brought his sons Charles, almost ten, and John Quincy, now twelve. He lived far away from Franklin this time. 

By 1780, the war was five years old with no end in sight, although Spain and France were now at war with Britain as well. There were a couple instances where the British could have won if they'd pressed their attack instead of delaying.

Adams felt France wasn't doing enough to bring the war to a close and ended up going to The Netherlands to get their support. He didn't have much success until the Americans and French got a stunning victory at Yorktown, capturing the army of Cornwallis. The Dutch then supported America with a much-needed loan. Britain was ready to talk peace by this point and Adams was one of the negotiators.

While John was away, Abigail flirted with congressman James Lovell via letters. John wrote to her less frequently and dissuaded her from joining him until peace was declared, then he asked her to come join him in Europe.

After the peace treaty was signed, he was named one of the diplomats to negotiate commerce with Britain in 1783. Abigail brought their daughter Nabby with her, leaving their two youngest sons in the care of a friend. Nearly 19, Nabby was brought along to keep her from marrying a suitor John didn't like, although he changed his mind and said she could marry, but his letter didn't reach them until after they'd gotten on the boat.

Adams returned to America in 1788 and wanted to be vice president. Some were worried he might get more votes than Washington, so Alexander Hamilton secretly took some of his votes away to ensure Washington would win. (In this book, Hamilton is presented as the power behind the throne, being Washington's main advisor during his presidency and manipulating Adams through members of his cabinet during Adams' presidency.) While Adams was vice president, Washington rarely sought his opinion, but he did cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate at least 31 times, often to strengthen the federal government.

When Adams became president, he bought some furniture off Washington who didn't want to take it all with him. However, he declined to buy a couple horses Washington was trying to sell, thinking Washington was trying to swindle him. He was right. Washington confided to a friend that the horses were older than he had said they were. (So much for Washington not being able to tell a lie.) To add further insult, when Adams moved into the President's House in Philadelphia, he found it hadn't been cleaned and Washington's servants had damaged some of the furniture in a drunken stupor.

When Adams took office, England and France were at war and both were seizing American ships. Washington remained neutral rather than entering the war and Adams did as well, although he prepared for war by creating an army, strengthening the navy, and giving a lot of pro-war speeches.

The XYZ affair happened in 1798. France refused to speak to US delegates and had even asked for bribes, an extension of a loan, and for Adams to apologize for allegedly making anti-French statements. The diplomats' report was made public and many people called for war with France and feared France would invade America. Adams' party, the Federalists, were anti-French and wanted war, while Vice President Jefferson's party, the Democratic-Republicans, were pro-French and wanted peace.

Since immigrants tended to be Democratic-Republicans, the Federalist Congress and Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Immigrants now had to wait 14 years before becoming citizens with the right to vote. The president now had the power to deport aliens (although Adams never ended up deporting anybody). Also, the Sedition Act made it illegal for the press to conspire to thwart federal law or make false statements about federal officials, quashing free speech and dissent. It was passed in order to silence the anti-war critics in the opposing party. In a blow to free speech, 14 reporters were indicted for sedition, definitely one of the worst things Adams did.

The cold war with France was called the Quasi-War. Even though his political party wanted war and Adams spoke out in favor of war, he eventually chose peace. His own party was furious at him, writing angry editorials and even death threats. Alexander Hamilton was in favor of war so the US could take over Florida and Louisiana. Hamilton also wanted to become a famous general like Washington.

Towards the end of his term, Adams got rid of a couple of his cabinet members who were secretly working for Hamilton, and demobilized the army Hamilton was in charge of. He also pardoned three tax protestors who had been sentenced to death on charges of treason. The capital of the US was moved from Philadelphia to Federal City which people were calling Washington. 

Adams lost the election of 1800 to Jefferson, and learned the news of his alcoholic son Charles' death right before the electors met. John had forced Charles into a legal career even though he wasn't suited to it. His son Thomas also was unhappy being a lawyer and also became an alcoholic.

Adams was raised as a Calvinist and became a ecumenical Christian as a young adult, before finally becoming a Unitarian in his final years. He believed in a Supreme Creator and a non-eternal afterlife, but denounced institutional Christianity and rejected the notion of Jesus' divinity. He believed Christianity was the cause of much pain and suffering, but he did like the teachings of Jesus.

He lived to see his son John Quincy elected president when he was 89. He outlived his much younger wife as well as his daughter who died of cancer. The longest-lived president before Reagan, Adams finally died on the same day as Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He even rekindled his friendship with Jefferson, exchanging over a hundred letters with him during his long retirement.

I believe the best way to judge a president is comparing how many lives they saved versus how many died because of their actions. On the plus side, Adams saved an unknown number of lives by avoiding war with France (thousands maybe?) While silencing freedom of speech with the Sedition Act was bad, he at least doesn't seem to be responsible for any deaths (unlike Washington who massacred Native Americans and was responsible for starting the French and Indian War). The fact Adams was opposed to slavery also makes him a better president than Washington. (Except for John and his son John Quincy, the first twelve presidents of the United States were all slave holders.)

Washington is generally ranked higher than Adams when you see lists of the best presidents, but this is largely due to the fact he has greater name recognition due to being the first. Unless this biography left something out, I think a good argument could be made for Adams being the better president of the two simply because he wasn't responsible for any deaths. Adams was an angry person and didn't treat his sons very well. He also nearly went to war with France, so I'm not saying he was a great person or that great of a president, but at least he didn't kill anybody.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and gives a fantastic picture of a flawed but very great man. Not only did it show Adam’s greatness but also of his wife. Adams gives some of the most cogent arguments for early American conversation.

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

As far as biographies go this was a good read. When I finished this book I was left with a complex but I would say negative view of Adams. I think this is partly due to the author John Ferling who admits that he doesn’t like Adams all that much in his prologue. Adams comes off largely as smart, innovative, but also self-serving and proud. He was no doubt a man who loved his country and himself and his own ideas of government. It’s kind of a shame, because I found some of Adams’ ideas rather compelling and he stands alone of the revolutionary president as one who didn’t own slaves. But it seems that he is tainted by his own self-importance and anger when he doesn’t get his way.
This book might not paint the most flattering image of Adams but it still gives a nuanced look at who Adams is and what he did. Namely the ideas that he first brought to bear in American political thought. The sections on his diplomatic work during and after the war and his early and later years were most enjoyable for me. As was the thread that winds through the novel of his relationship with Thomas Jefferson. He was a rather limp-twisted president, but this biography does a good job of making Adams and engaging if not necessarily likable person to read about.

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ferling's biography is fascinating and wonderfully written. I think he paints a more complete picture than David McCullough of both Adam's personality and his relationships with family, friends and associates.


After I finished McCullough's book I remember being particularly impressed with the level of Adam's education, the decades-long pivotal role he played in the founding of our country and the rich written record he left behind. As I read Ferling's biography I was interested in the similarities and differences between his times and ours. He lived with Abigail continuously for only four years of their marriage until after he retired from the presidency. He was a largely absentee husband and father. Over the years, Abigail became increasingly independent and grew to appreciate her autonomy. Interestingly, Adams did no campaigning. This was common in those days but he also felt it was beneath his dignity. Despite this fact that he did not actively campaign, mudslinging and negative campaigning were widespread back then. Although he made many good decisions, Adams was also party to some very regrettable legislation. The Alien and Sedition Act, passed during his presidency, looked very much like G.W. Bush's Patriot Act. Even in the late 1700's politicians used patriotism and military spending to retain power. And some businessmen-turned-politicians (not Adams) used lucrative military contracts to selfishly enrich themselves (Dick Cheney/Haliburton). In spite of his shortcomings and mistakes Adams was a "near-great president," perhaps because he had great integrity. I'm so hoping that Obama's presidency will resemble Adams' in this very important way.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boy, I am glad to be done with this one...

That is not to say it is a bad book, rather, it is a difficult one...at least for me.

First knock, I am not a big fan of biographies.

Second, biographies read like the individuals they portray, somewhat like how dogs bear uncanny resemblances to their owners. And while Ferling is convincing in his case that Adams is immensely consequential, comported himself with high ethical standards, was the consummate statesman, and selflessly devoted to American national interests, he is also compelling in making the case that Adams was vain, ambitious, acerbic, resentful, and, perhaps most annoyingly, intensely insecure.

Lastly, the book has an awkward cadence to it. While the overarching narrative is sequential, the book moves forward and back in time without a lot of context. It is as though Ferling has a topic based narrative structure and he draws from sources and anecdotes throughout Adams' life to illustrate his point. I wouldn't dream of criticizing this as a valid tool for writing history, but it did make the book a trying read.

That said, I wanted a book that gave me a sense of John Adams. The book covers the breadth and depth of his life. The closing paragraph even tries to make explicit judgement of the man in both public and personal domains. I think it is a telling and laudable indication of Ferling's effort to account for all of Adams' life that the Adams' presidency receives some of the least in depth treatment of the whole book. It would be easy to reduce major historical figures to the highest office they achieve.

Upshot: this seems a good survey of Adams' life, but I would not call it a fun or easy read.

[Paul Burkhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Aspar · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Jarno Mehtiö · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kirjan kuvaus on törkeästi liioitteleva. Jos tätä vertaa Goodwiniin tai Chernowiin (tai uuteen suosikkiini, Caroon) teos on kömpelö. Kirjan jälkeen minulla ei ole kummoista kuvaa Adamsin ajan politiikan monipuolisuudesta ja teemoista, korkeintaan niistä asioista, joihin Adams osallistui. Ja tällöinkin herkästi vain Adamsin itsensä näkökulmasta, ei monipuolista kuvausta teemasta.

Tuntuu myös kuin Adamsin tekoja esitellään turhan hyviin päin, koska en aina ihan saanut kiinni, mikä hänen toimissaan oli niin erinomaista. Esimerkiksi hänen suurlähettiläskaudellaan Euroopassa ei hän hirveän suuria mullistuksia saanut aikaiseksi mielestäni, konkreettisia tukia tai mullistavia lainoja (sai toki Hollannista lainoja, mutta en osaa kirjan perusteella sanoa, kuinka merkittäviä ne olivat). Rauhansopimuksen neuvottelu oli merkittävä,ja toiminta kongress(e)issa itsenäistymisen molemmin puolin.

Presidenttikaudelta ei käsitellä oikeastaan kuin Ranskan sodan mahdollisuus ja hänen suuri vaikutus sen vastustamiseen. Mutta hyvin huonosti. Miksi hän oli kannalla, miksi hän lopulta vastusti ei aukea riittävän hyin.

Kirjassa haukutaan myös hassusti Adamsin kulloisenkin elämäntilanteen mukaan muita, Jeffersonia kehutaan ennen kuin heistä tuli kilpailijat, ja kehutaan taas, kun he elämiensä loppupuolella olivat ystäviä. He kuolivat samana päivänä, itsenäisyysjulistuksen 50-vuotispäivänä. Mikä muuten kirjan mukaan nosti Adamsin statusta todennäköisesti myös jälkipolvien kohdalla, koska heidät kytkettiin täten yhteen.

Ilmeisesti Ferling ei ole Chernowin kanssa samaa mieltä Hamiltonista. Adams ei tullut toimeen Hamiltonin kanssa, vaikka olivat samassa federalistisessa puolueessa. Hamilton esitetään häikäilemättömänä poliitikkona, pohjoisen teollisuuden etujen ajajana, joka jopa halveksi suurinta auttajaansa, Washingtonia. Ehkä. Mutta toisaalta olisi voinut mainita samalla Hamiltonin taloudellisesta merkityksestä, teollistumisen auttamisesta sekä perustuslain puolustamisesta (federalist's papers).

Edelleen, sama kuin aiemmin. Voisin antaa kolme, mutta sellaisia suomalaisia elämänkertoja saanut kolme, joten saakoon tämä neljä.

[Daniel Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Bobby Desmond · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Nate]

Published in 1992, John Ferling's biography of John Adams has been superseded by several subsequent books, notably David McCullough's treatment that was the basis for the excellent HBO miniseries. I was planning on reading McCullough's book, but after being so impressed by Ferling's A Leap in the Dark and Almost a Miracle (especially A Leap in the Dark, which on reflection I consider a masterpiece) I wanted to read his Adams bio. And sure enough, this is a terrific read. In Ferling's hands, Adams comes across as thoroughly human. Throughout Adams’ life, he battled with his vanity and desire for fame. His blind spots, stubbornness, and outwardly difficult personality were ever present as he tirelessly served the cause of American independence and the establishment of an American republic. His letters and diary entries - utilized so skillfully by Ferling - reveal a deep awareness of his flaws, but even with that awareness he doesn’t always seek to correct them. I call that human. Adams was who he was, yet still battled with himself.

This is a rare book where the writing improves as it goes on. Ferling’s sentences become sharper and more muscular, with some beautiful turns of phrase in the final chapters, while his own conclusions become more potent. I was impressed with Ferling’s observations about the Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as Adams’ treatment of his children, especially Charles. These are low points in Adams’ life, and Ferling’s criticism is both pointed and informative.

The one negative is the same negative I had with Almost a Miracle: the afterward is unnecessary. In the afterward, Ferling repeats points he made earlier in the book, and even repeats points within the afterward. It feels like a tacked on, last-minute analysis at odds with the largely narrative-driven biography. Still, I loved reading this book overall, learned a lot, and came away admiring Adams. For his achievements, yes, but also how human he was.

[Esther Kozakevich · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book had a big impact on me. It's my second John Ferling and I absolutely love his style and the care and respect he has for the subjects of his books.

This is the second book in my presidential biography project, and I felt much more strongly about Adams than I did about Washington, which surprised me. Adams just felt like such a more flawed and interesting character. Whereas Washington was the irreproachable military hero, Adams was more insecure, prideful, quick to anger, and less calculated. His abandonment of Abigail and the kids was puzzlingly juicy to me. I had no idea that he developed such an enmity toward Franklin during their time together in France. His presidency was truly an act of public service: filling Washington's shoes, dealing with the newly burgeoning Federalist/Republican political parties, the feverish pro-French revolutionary sentiments which quickly turned into hawkish clamoring for war against France, the way his own cabinet and especially Hamilton undermined him ... I really felt for Adams and all he had to deal with. The Alien and Sedition Acts were obviously a lowlight of the presidency, but the fact that Adams kept the country out of war with France is really nothing short of miraculous.

I teared up at the end of the biography when Adams, solicited for his thoughts on the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the declaration of independence said "independence forever." He dramatically held out until that day, and died on July 4th on the same day as Jefferson. I was EMOTIONAL.

I can't wait to read John Quincy Adams' biography, I liked everything I read about him here. Anyway, this biography was amazing and I have such a soft spot for this curmudgeonly Bostonian.

[Lindsey Barger · Rating 3 out of 5]

When considering early presidents, John Adams is hardly the most well know. Serving between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, Adams appears to be rather unremarkable as president. However, his life beyond that office is quite distinguished. From his early carreer as a lawyer to his overseas statesmanship, Adams was present for many of the events that shaped our young country.

John Ferling’s John Adams: A life is a well researched and detailed examination of who Adams was as a family man and stateman. Ferling examines his early upbringing, his relationship with his wife, shepherding his children, and later, his political writings and ambitions. This book reads like a narrative biography, not a text to be studied, but covers many key moments in Adams life such as his representation of the British during the Boston Massacre trial, and his service as dignitary to France and Brittan after the Revolutionary War.

I give John Adams: A life 3 out of 5 stars. While this does not read like a textbook, there is much information to unpack. At times, I felt as though the narrative was rushed, while others felt slow and repetitive. I did enjoy the author’s coverage of Adams’ personal relationships with the founding fathers and family members which gave the man more of a human feel and less like a myth only read about in books.

I would recommend this book for readers looking to learn more about our second or fourth presidents – John Quincy Adams’ early life and career are also recounted here as it pertains to his travels with his father and early diplomatic postings. I would also recommend this for those interested in the Revolutionary War – the author gives details about the motivations and insight into the patterns that brought loyalists like Adams to turn towards revolution.

I chose John Adams: A Life as my historical biography read for July. After spending 8 months reading about George and Martha Washington and several contemporaries, I am moving on to our second president. I am looking forward to reading Janet Whitney’s biography of Abigail Adams later this month to continue this trend!

[Brent Ecenbarger · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Katrina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps I am biased (people are often biased towards what they are exposed to first, I've found,) but I prefer David McCullough's John Adams. After all, that was the biography that inspired me to pursue a career in law and government. But this was an interesting biography for me (as a deep admirer of John Adams) to read. It leaned more into John Adams' irascibility and faults than did McCullough's, while still remaining balanced and able to recognize the good that Adams did. It was also interesting to see how much more attention he gave to Adams' pre-revolutionary life and development of radical revolutionary feelings than McCullough did, while glossing over other parts of Adams life, like his relationship with Thomas Jefferson.

One thing I didn't like was that the author seemed to overlay his personal feelings about John Adams' absences from his family onto the text. I don't need a biographer to tell me what to think about a subject; I just want the biographer to present me with the fact. I can come to conclusions about the person on my own.

All in all, a solid biography, but I'm more likely to return to McCullough than reread this one.

[Diana · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

At first I struggled to choose between David McCullough's and John Ferling's biography of John Adams. Even though McCullough's book is infinitely more popular, I decided to stop on Ferling's work. I enjoyed the experience overall but I can't say I was left completely satisfied. I feel like I got nothing more than a brief overview of John Adams's life. But that's what you get when you read a single-volume biography of a man who at different points in his life was a successful lawyer, a revolutionary, an ambassador and a president. So I don’t really have a right to complain here. What I definitely liked about this book is its impartiality. I didn’t notice a single instance when the author tried to portrait Adams in a more favorable light than he deserved. John Ferling also gets another point from me for the important place he gives to the President’s family. Even though John Adams was clearly not an example to follow as a family man (especially during the first part of his life) I feel like his biography would have been incomplete without mentioning his wife and children.