JOHN ADAMS: OBNOXIOUS AND DISLIKED
Read the article this discussion is about
- Mugwump53
- BuckyRea
- Mugwump53
-
Brian Tubbs
- Mugwump53
-
Brian Tubbs
- Mugwump53
-
Brian Tubbs
- Mugwump53
-
Brian Tubbs
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Mugwump53 - Re: An Oldie, but Goodie
In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:I agree with you completely. With a similar definition of pomposity, we are agreed in our evaluation of John Adams, both professionally and personally.
Let me start by agreeing with the dictionary version. I never saw "pompous" as a character flaw (although it might be a personality problem) or in any way mutually exclusive with patriotism or statemanship. Some very great men, Adams included, have been pompous. I see it as more of a personal style than a character trait.
I will go even further to state that Adams' love of ceremony, titles, rituals and protocol was more than mere vanity. In his years in the courts of Europe, and especially in England, he grew to have a sincere appreciation of the benefits of such grandeur and pomp (the source of pomposity). He genuinely felt that our infant republic would need such pomp and grandeur to impress the European powers if it was to be taken seriously. So, to some degree, patriotism rather than vanity was the source of his pomposity.
I see now why you took issue with my use of the term. I never thought for a moment that Adams' pomposity would cause him to put his own ego above the needs of the country. Far from it! His greatest attribute was that he always did what he thought was best for the nation, even if it was not the best for himself. One can be pompous and patriotic at the same time. I think that is where we disgreeed. Your definition did not allow for that.
I agree with you that his handling of the "undeclared naval war" with France and the entire X-Y-Z Affair was a perfect example. I am sure you know the story of Adams writing his own epitaph (forgive any misquote) "Here lies John Adams, who in the year 1800, took upon himself the responsibility for peace with France."
As to his legacy, his prickly personality, and that he did the thankless jobs rather than the glamorous ones, made such a legacy inevitable. He wasn't the impressive figure that Washington was, and his personal reserve came off as aloof rather than dignified.
Yes, Adams is unjustly forgotten by the history books. He has always been one of my favorites. Yes, he made some political mistakes (such as keeping Washington's cabinet which was loyal to Hamilton rather than Adams, and signing the High Federalists' Alien and Sedition Acts which backfired badly) but Adams was a great stateman and a poor politician. Unfortunately, you can't get to be a stateman in a democracy without being a politician first (something Adams never realized).
Thanks for your insightful input. This is a discussion well worth continuing.
-- posted by Mugwump53
» BuckyRea - A-ha!!
In response to Brian Tubbs:A while ago, Brian, you asked about who might be cast in the role of John Adams in the cable movie based on the McCullough book. Now, after reading this discussion on the man's nuanced and honorable pomposity it occurs to me who would be perfect for the role: Kelsey Grammar, TV's Frasier Crane from Frasier. For that matter, the woman who plays his ex, Lilith Stern, wouldn't be all that bad as Abigail. Eddy the dog as John Quincy wouldn't work, though.
-- posted by BuckyRea
»
Brian Tubbs
- PERFECT!
Kelsey Grammar would be a splendid John Adams. As John says, I think he'd come off just right - obnoxiously "pompous" and vain, yet at the same time, vulnerable and lovable.
Seriously, you should send that suggestion into David McCullough - who I know is going to consult on the production.
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
»
Brian Tubbs
- More on Adams
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
» Mugwump53 - Re: More on Adams
In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:As always, I think your observations were very astute. I agree with all you said. I do, however, want to clarify one of my previous comments.
When I said Adams was a great statesman but a poor politician, I should have defined my terms. Your examples of his handling of the Barbary pirates and the undeclared naval war with France fall more into the heading of statemanship to me. By politics, I meant the petty electioneering and party feuding at home. As brilliant as Adams was on larger matters, he misread petty politics most of the time. For example, he kept Washington's entire cabinet, even though all its members felt more allegiance to Hamilton than to Adams. Hence, his own cabinet often worked against him. He did not understand (or more accurately want to understand, in short he just didn't care about)party politics. He felt it was beneath him. This is even more true of his son, John Quincy Adams. Unfortunately, times were changing.
You make a great point about his service being less than glamorous. Being a hard worker in the ill-respected Continental Congress did not have the dash of being a victorious soldier. And yes, Adams often went against the popular side of issues. Not a presription for becoming a popular poitician.
But he always went with what was right, in his opinion, and that is what counts. He put country ahead of party, and even ahead of his own career. As I said, a great stateman. It seems people are coming to appreciate him (somewhat) at last.
-- posted by Mugwump53
»
Brian Tubbs
- An Oldie, but Goodie
This really is a great piece on Adams. One of your best articles, I think.
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
» Mugwump53 - Re: An Oldie, but Goodie
In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:Thanks so much. I'm glad you liked it, and of course, you are welcome to use anything of mine whenever you wish. (Just in case you needed that in writing) I'm always happy to hear you think something of mine is good, as I value your opinion highly. I hope everyone gets over to your site to read your article.
-- posted by Mugwump53
»
Brian Tubbs
- Re: Re: An Oldie, but Goodie
Thanks, I hope you'll come over as well. My section misses your insightful comments. Besides, weren't you going to pick a bone about FDR v. Reagan in my previous article? I've been waiting for that. :-)
-- posted by Brian Tubbs
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.