just finished this. does anyone have any opinions on john adams? i was surprised to find how pretty normal he was and how two faced and typical politician jefferson was
>>25411542also by normal i mean that he seems like a pretty good guy morally and smart. he had an interesting life of course but since he was so involved in politics i expected him to be a piece of shit like all politicians but he was almost an anti-politician and refused to ever do any dirty dealingshe was mainly dogged his political career for being a secret monarchist (and being fat) which of course it totally silly and just a conspiracy theory but it goes to show how much little actual dirt they could dig up on him
>>25411555>championed the american navy and a/the father of the navy>first supported and suggested washington as army leader>first vice president, second president>son (john quincy adams) went on many adventures with him and later became president himself>started the first american embassy >always supported the navy and pressured france to help with its navy, predicting thats how britain would be defeated which later turned out to be true>disliked franklin for being lazy and not even knowing french, friends with jefferson despite jefferson and him disagreeing greatly politically, hung out a little with john paul jones in france>tons of letters of his exist because of his long service overseas and constant writing to his wife and friends
>>25411542he was an elitist, which is the morally correct position, so most people hated him because they aren't elite
>>25411542I always felt the opposite. Adams always came off as a tyrant to me.
>>25412131adams is supposed to be an elitist and jeffereson the man of the people but adams was an actual farmer who lived in a random house in town and jeff lived on an actual mountain top alone with an army of slaves to do all his work for him and was an elite virginia aristocrat. in what way was he supposed to be an elitist? >>25412214>tyrantwhy is that?
>>25412131I don't know about Adams being an elitist. He was a realist, and I think he'd gladly describe himself as such. Read his letters with John Taylor. >Birth is naturally and necessarily and inevitably so connected and blended with property, fame, power, education, genius, strength, beauty, learning, science, taste, figure, air, attitudes, movements, &c. &c. &c., that it is often impossible, and always difficult to separate them. Two children are born on the same day, of equal genius,—one, the son of Mr. Jefferson; the other, of Nimrod Hughes. Which will meet with most favor in the world? Would a child of Anthony Benezet, good creature as he was, have an equal chance in life with a son of Robert Morris, when the wealth of nations was believed to be in his power? Would a son of the good Rutherford, the predecessor of General Morgan, have an equal favor in the world with a son of the great General and President Washington? Would a son of Sir Isaac Newton have no more favor in the sight of the whole human race than a son of Mr. Rittenhouse, the worthy President of the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia? Beau Nash meet no more complaisance than one of the Hercules du Roi, whom I have seen leap at Sadlers, Wells, and turn his heels over his head, at a height of ten or twelve feet, and come down on the other side of the stage erect? I leave, sir, to your fertile genius, ample reading, and long experience, to pursue the inquiries. I could continue to enumerate examples through sheets of paper.>Has not the experience of six thousand years shown that the common people submit more easily and quietly to birth than to wealth, genius, fame, or any other talents? Whence the prejudices against upstarts, parvenus, &c.? Whence the general respect, reverence, and submission in all ages and nations, of plebeians to patricians, of sieurs to monsieurs, of juffrouws to mevrouws? If a man of high birth is promoted, little or nothing is said by the plebeians. If one of their own level, the son of a tradesman or common farmer is advanced, all the envy and bile of his equals is excited. He is abused and belittled, if not reviled, by all his former equals, as they thought themselves, whatever may have been the superiority of his genius, education, services, experiences, or other talents. There is nothing, Mr. Taylor, to which the vulgar, in general, so quietly and patiently and cordially submit as to birth.
>>25411542I'll just copy + paste some of my own notes on this biography and The Portable John Adams.>Adams held a very low opinion of the average person which I share, while Jefferson believed even the meanest man could (and would) be educable and trusted to direct local and state government if only certain barriers were removed. However, I dislike the tendency and sentiment of the former, and appreciate those of the latter. That's only natural, though. Everyone would rather be free to do whatever they please; but in the interest of one's own freedom, it is more expedient to erect laws enjoining each from the violation of another's.>Adams is not a monarchist, nor does he stand in favor of traditional aristocratic rule; but for his skeptical views of democracy and his recognition of a natural aristocracy he has historically been derided as a traitor to the revolution. It's only recently that we've begun to see a reappraisal of his philosophy and character. In truth, he was one of the most instrumental figures of the revolution, and the union would have split much sooner had he not been so involved at its infancy.>The popular reception of Jefferson has followed quite nearly the exact reverse of Adams'. He was the man of freedom, democracy, and progress; and he had more of the politician in him withal. Yet today he is widely looked on with disdain. Despite the warm friendship the two shared throughout the course of the revolution, when it came time to realize their ideals in that country they helped form, it quickly became clear that they couldn't easily coexist without a constant butting of heads. From behind the scenes Jefferson began setting himself up as a foil to Adams, spreading rumors via newspaper of his monarchist sympathies and undue respect for English common law.>Jefferson was, in all honesty, a francophile. Adams might well be described as an anglophile, but his focus was rather more so on preserving and developing the existing New England safeguards against canon and feudal law, introduced generations prior to his own by the first planters. Thus the importance he placed on public liberal education and Protestantism, or simply non-Catholicism.>This put him at variance with the democratic fervor of his time and the growing urge to emulate the French Revolution in the Democratic-Republican party. As president, the people stood against him, and even their opinion of Washington worsened as Jeffersonianism swept the country. This sort of conflict was a major factor in the split between the North and South, as the latter interested itself more in personal freedoms, agrarianism, and states' rights.
>>25412666>>25411542>I've noticed this, though it wasn't unclear to me before: Adams has a strong dislike of romantic and cavalier attitudes. To him they debase men and bring them, in reality, not honor and glory, but down to the level of savage beasts. He said in On Private Revenge No. I that what set men apart from wild animals was our "capacity of acquiring knowledge and civility"; men do not by nature possess those traits. This is a good example of that, then, and debasing oneself begins to carry a much graver meaning for those who share this mindset.>As self-deceit is common to all men, and it is unavoidable that it will creep its way into governments, our enemies, our friends, and even ourselves, we must not relax our vigilance for seeing through to the truth, rather than being blinded by the self-delusion of ourselves and others. Even those we trust to deliver fair and reasoned judgements might be persuaded by certain circumstances to deceive us into a prejudice against the innocent. And there are also times when those pernicious lies are spread so wide and with such frequency that, though they be about ourselves, it being our own innocence in question, we begin to suppose their validity.
>>25411542The HBO mini-series based on this book is 10/10, btw. You should watch it
>>25412668>>25412666Comment: It should also be remembered that the immediate result of the French Revolution was a retrenching and reinforcement of the sort of centralized administration present in the Ancien Regime. Adams saw this, but Jefferson remained, iirc, obstinately dedicated to the cause until his very last years. I seem to remember reading a letter of his in which he renounced his former support, though. Read The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution by Alexis de Tocqueville for more on this.
>>25412639Why do you think?
>>25412856because he was a federalist? but that would be a retarded reason to think he was a tyrant and would make you a nigger retard which is why i asked for you to explain yourself instead of jumping to a conclusion
>>25412666Adams did comment on the superiority of New England to the other regions of the US on account of the people being of purer English blood, but he also mentioned that this was because its states' founders had migrated from England before its decline and thus unsullied.
>>25412983That might well be the case.
Of the first 12 Presidents, John Adams and his son John Quincy were the only two who weren't slaveholders. -- Jefferson, on the other hand, fathered children by his slave Sally Hemings.
>>25411542>>25411542adams and jefferson, two of the last three living signers, died on the same day. the 50th anniversary of the 4th of july. 200 years ago this month
