JOHN ADAMS: OBNOXIOUS AND DISLIKED: More on Adams

» Brian Tubbs - More on Adams

John, I think you nailed the number one problem working against Adams in terms of his aspirations to be a popular and appreciated figure in his day and leave a lasting, memorable legacy. He was a poor politician. All of his personality deficiencies can be grouped under this statement.

I think another factor working against him, and we've basically agreed on this and you've very strongly alluded to it already, is that he put principles over politics. Obviously, this overlaps with the fault you mentioned, and can therefore also be attributed to your statement that he was a "poor politician" but fine statesman. I want to make a twist to that, however.

I do believe that he was an intelligent realist, and therefore wasn't completely clueless as to the nature of politics - not that you're saying he was. An example that comes to mind of Adams's realism and political awareness tempering his emotional idealism is the exchange he had with Jefferson (when they were both diplomats in Europe) on the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson, focused solely on principle, argued for war with the North African nations in the 1780s, something the U.S. was nowhere near ready to do. It was Adams who counseled patience and urged U.S. acquiesence to the pirates' demands.

Therefore, I think Adams knew full well what the political stakes were for him when he chose peace with France over war. In fact, I think he applied similar logic to the situation. Hamilton's "provisional army" and delusions of grandeur aside, the U.S. was not prepared for war in the 1790s. Washington knew it, and so did Adams. So just as Washington swallowed his pride and accepted Jay's Treaty to avert war with England, Adams exercised extreme patience and endured repeated insults to America's honor from France in order to pursue peace with that nation. Adams faced the same zealotry in his party and Cabinet that he encountered with Jefferosn years before over the Barbary Pirate situation, but he stuck to his course. He knew it was the prudent thing (to use a George H.W. Bush term), even though it would probably cost him the presidency. Adams deserved particular praise for this, because he didn't just stand on principle. In fact, his opponents thought he was eschewing principle. Adams believed, in this case, that the principled thing to do was to safeguard America's interests by avoiding a disastrous war and pursuing the best peace which could be achieved. This was a difficult position to stand on, from a public relations standpoint, given the mood of the day. It wasn't a clear-cut principle over politics choice. It was only that in hindsight, but not easily seen that way at the time.

The final thing Adams had going against him was his lack of overt, visible, appealing service. Adams was a gifted speaker, but in a day before radio and TV, not many people came to appreciate that fact. Adams made his mark as a hard-working, tireless public servant. He did it the hard way. Washington, while no slouch, made his mark nevertheless as a symbol. He achieved that status through his military service, capped off by his very public and world-renowned resignation from the Continental Army at war's end.

In a day when people read much more than they do now - at least in terms of political pamphlets and newspapers - Jefferson had made his mark as a great thinker and leader via his gifted pen. Being Franklin's successor in France didn't hurt either, since there was a tremendous allure for French society on the part of many Americans. (Ironically enough, once again, Adams had the more difficult but less appreciated task of serving as America's first envoy to Britain, the nation they had just defeated in war).

The cards were just not dealt in Adams's favor, in terms of winning popular claim and long-lasting appreciation. It is a shame, but thankfully, Americans are starting to reassess his legacy.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs