Reviews for The character of John Adams

The average rating for The character of John Adams based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-09-11 00:00:00 Alexander Elenskiy When this book was first published in 1976, it garnered high reviews: “Peter Shaw has taken a voyage of discovery through the wonderful writings of John Adams’ mind and character. It is exciting all the way, and many of the findings are as illuminating as anything that has been written in our time about the leaders of the Revolutionary generation.” … “…commends itself by its distinctive quality. So far as I know, no one else has ever probed the capacious but disorderly mind of this great patriot as deeply as this author.” … “[A] beautifully written book.” “Excellent. ,,, Weaving psychological analysis with narrative, [Peter Shaw] shows us the connection between Adams’s character and the content and context of his life.” Since then, Shaw’s book has been used as a source in most subsequent studies of John Adams, to include David McCullough’s excellent, Pulitzer Prize winning “John Adams.” The book’s title defines its focus on Adams’ character, specifically his efforts to defend his honor and reputation. Unlike George Washington, who was so conscious of history that he would endeavor to rewrite imperfect letters for posterity or have Martha destroy all his personal correspondence except for 2-3 overlooked letters, John Adams more or less operated open-kimono, sharing his feelings, wearing his heart on his sleeve throughout his prodigious correspondence. While this rich source has been wonderful for history-lovers, it shows Adams’ profound, less-than-admirable jealousy of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson and his feeling that history would cheat him. For example, I knew that Adams’ felt that Jefferson unfairly got credit for writing the Declaration of Independence. After all, Adams had to strongly twist Jefferson’s arm to take up the pen and draft the Declaration, then Adams and three others helped Jefferson refine it before submitting it to the 2nd Continental Congress for further refinement and ratification. What I didn’t realize, however, was that on the final page of Shaw’s book, Adams “believed Jefferson to have copied largely from himself and James Otis.” Another interesting thing I found in the book: Adams’ strong concern about the President’s title [Washington chose “Mr. President”], which helped alienate him from both Washington and Congress, originated with Adams’ ambassadorial time in Europe, where he was impressed with titles [thus even suggesting that Washington be called “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties”]. Thus, “…he went so far as to predict that without the title ‘Majesty,’ George Washington would be so scorned in Europe that America would be forced into war to support his dignity.” Given that I was drawn to this Adams book from my own studies of Washington’s character, I was curious that the author gave scant coverage to their interaction, mentioning Washington just a “sweet 16” times in fleeting commentary. Therefore, I was surprised that little time was spent on their different views of militia versus professional soldiers, as well as Adams war-time dissatisfaction with Washington. [Wikipedia notes: “Some congressmen such as Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, and Samuel Adams wanted tighter Congressional control of the war effort and supported Gates. Although John Adams did not specifically call for Washington to be replaced, he worried that Washington was being made into a military idol, and was fearful of the effects of this upon republicanism.”] I was also disappointed with the small coverage given to the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as to the fact that, while the book includes many detailed footnotes, there is no bibliography. This all said, while there are now better books to be had on John Adams, Shaw's book on Adams' character is still worth reading by serious students of this great man.

Review # 2 was written on 2017-11-12 00:00:00 John Sweeney "The Adams Papers have opened to view the colorful side of Adams with such impact that he is in danger of going rom a nonentity to a character: explosive of temper, all too quotably biting in his criticism of others, consumedly envious, brutally awkward in company." (viii) "For himself, he did not dream of becoming renowned as the 'Atlas' or colossus of independence, though he could not forget John Jay's attempt to flatter him as 'the first man' in the House. Instead, he wised to be remembered as an early advocate of independence; as it champion on the floor; as the proponent of the formation of state governments, and a leading architect, through Thoughts on Government, of their constitutions; as a founder of the American navy; as as the originator of the foreign policy of no entangling alliances. Adams expected not wild applause by strict justice to his sacrifices and to these attainments." (105) "At table [in France] beautiful women exposed their bosoms and their morals. Adams was shocked -- as much by his own enjoyment as by the dangers to republican morality posed by the french attention to luxury." (110) "Man's need for recognition, the subject of the titles debate, dominated 'Davila,' where Adams called it 'the passion for distinction.' Adams made a universal principle of the passion for distinction, offering an exclusive emphasis on it as his contribution to the great eighteenth-century discussion on the nature of man." (233) "From John Dickinson's snub, through Robert R. Livingston's French-inspired rebukes of his diplomacy, to the accusations on the floor of Congress that he was vain, Adams responded to direct aggression with surprising calm. Indeed, he tended to take to his bosom those who delivered it." (252)