The Blog to Be Named Later returns for a discussion of John Adams, the man, and John Adams, the HBO mini-series.
Since the series began airing last month, I have come across several news articles praising the quality of the production and calling for a re-examination of Adams. I've heard a few people mention the subject, people I wouldn't necessarily think would be interested. Okay, so Adams hasn't become a cultural phenomenon
in the last few weeks, but I have been encouraged by the generally sensible and thoughtful things I have heard and read.
I've also been surprised by my own reaction. I thought I understood this subject pretty well. I read David McCullough's book, on which this series is based. I've been to the Adams home in Quincy. I've touched his gravestone and that of his son with my bare hand. But the more time I spend watching John Adams, the more I realize I've been as guilty as historians and Adams' contemporaries in failing to grasp how important he was to American history.
Adams has not lingered in popular memory for obvious and easily understood reasons. In the order of office, he served after the heroic Washington and before the intellectual giant Jefferson. Both the first and third presidents captured the popular imagination, and to some degree hold it to this day. Adams was short, round, arrogant, and dismissive of his critics. He was every bit the equal of his contemporaries in intellect, force of personality, and historical importance. However, although he fit well with Washington and Jefferson, he also had traces of Richard Nixon in him.
That statement may come as a slap in the face to Adams fans, if there are any to be found. I only mean that Adams, like Nixon, had the respect that comes with skill and accomplishment. But what Adams really wanted was to be loved by the American people, as Washington was. In this, he was much like Nixon gazing with envy at JFK's portrait in the White House. However, unlike Nixon, John Adams largely resisted the dark urges of his character. The better angels of his nature, as Lincoln would say, won out.
Historians are almost universally critical of Adams for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts during his term of office, and rightfully so. This legislation was the 18th century equivalent of the Patriot Act, which took away the freedom of citizens in the name of protecting them. But Adams made this mistake in the midst of a larger crisis, the spectre of a disastrous war with France. On that score, Adams did right, even if he was denied due credit. The members of his party, and indeed the country at large, clamored for war with France. The patriotic nature of the crisis swelled Adams' popularity. He had only to go along with this overwhelming public desire for war, and he would have swept to re-election. In this crucible moment, Adams held firm. He placed principle before politics. He chose peace when war was the smart political move.
George W. Bush should watch this series. Ah, never mind, it's on after his bedtime.
In a sense, Adams doesn't get his "props" because there's no simple answer as to why he was great. Lincoln saved the Union. FDR pulled the country out of the Depression and steered a course to victory against tyranny. Why was Adams great? He was, as Jefferson called him, the "colossus of independence", who played a crucial role in the Continental Congress. It was Adams who proposed Washington for command of the Continental Army. It was Adams who put the quill in Jefferson's hands to write the Declaration of Independence. He made these moves because he recognized the skill of these men, but also because he cleverly sought to nationalize what was then a regional conflict by involving two prominent Southerners in the struggle. He authored Thoughts on Government, which was the foundation for modern state government. He served a diplomatic role in France, in the Netherlands, and helped restore good will and commerce as America's first ambassador to Britain. Even in the then-inconsequential office of Vice President, he mattered, serving as a moderating influence between the extreme positions of Jefferson and Hamilton. When President Washington could not count on either because of their struggle, he could turn to Adams for reasonable counsel. As president, Adams not only prevented a needless war with a continental power, by so doing he preserved conditions which a few years later led to the Louisiana Purchase.
A fair and just list of his service to this country would exceed my ability to recount the events as well as the patience of the reader. Suffice it to say that perhaps the most significant oversight in the memory and gratitude of this country is the absence of a national monument of any kind to John Adams.
So that's my read of John Adams. What about John Adams? I am forced to recommend it, despite certain inaccuracies. Paul Giamatti's portrayal of Adams is masterful, and Laura Linney is superb as Abigail Adams. In the end, the series passes the test of making you care how the story ends (even if you already know) and illuminating the importance of its subject.
Maybe I was wrong, maybe there is a simple explanation for Adams's greatness. How about this: Yes, Lincoln saved the Union.
But if not for John Adams, there might have been no Union to save.
