  |
|
|
|
PRESIDENTIAL FEUDS, PART IRead the article this discussion is about
This archived discussion is "read only".
» jerrib - You bring our past presidents to life, John. This is so interesting, and it's really helpful to see the photos along with the text.It's going to be intriguing reading further about how presidents' personalities had a bearing on our country from their squabbles. I enjoyed your article. -- posted by jerrib » Mugwump53 - Re: You bring In response to message posted by jerrib:Hi, Jerri. Glad you liked the article. I have always found personal animosities and fueds in history interesting, espceially in how they affected our history. It is amazing how much in history depends on personal issues. -- posted by Mugwump53
»
It is interesting that both of the Adams Presidents served only one term and both defeated their opponents the first time only to lose the second time around. Without commenting on their respective political views in the context of their day (which is esp. difficult since the younger Adams broke with his father's party), I do believe that both exhibited high moral character which was, in both cases, superior to their opponents, Jefferson and Jackson respectively. -- posted by Brian Tubbs » Mugwump53 - Re: Perpetually Behind In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:Taking nothing away from Jefferson and Jackson, you are absolutely correct about both Adamses showing extraordinary moral courage and integrity, which cost both of them their re-elections. John Adams broke with his own party to prevent the war with France the High Federalists wanted so much. The split in his party prevented any chances of re-election. John Quincy Adams was much like his father. Both were not exactly popular, charming extroverts. Both were pompous, vain and overly sensitive. Yet both were true patriots and did what they thought best for the nation, even if it was not best for their section or party. Oh, for some pompous, able, patriotic (in the good old fashioned sense of the word) politicians! Jefferson had moral courage, but as President, every time he did something he would have roasted Adams for doing, he told himself it was a necessary exception. He never got it that all those exceptions were the rule. Jackson, of course, was never bound by things like principles. He could be avid states rights one moment (Indian removal by Georgia) and violently pro-central government the next (nullification crisis). Thanks for your viewpoint. As always, you add something new to my articles about the early years of our government. As always, I appreciate it very much. -- posted by Mugwump53
»
Having not had the privilege of knowing either Adams, I can't really speak with authority on whether they were truly "pompous." I acknowledge that they had this reputation with some people, but based on what I've read about them, I'm not convinced that this was a fair description. Vain, I will grant. And overly sensitive is certainly applicable. But "pompous" is taking things a step too far, in my humble opinion. Just my thoughts. -- posted by Brian Tubbs » Mugwump53 - Re: Pompous? In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:Hi, Brian. Your thoughts and humble opinions are always most welcomed here. I mst say that "pompous" seems to me a fair description of both Adamses, and one they even used in describing themselves. If you read my article on John Adams (Feb 2000), you will read of his love of court pomp and protocol and titles. One of his first speeches to the Senate was about his position. He asked them to decide what he was as president of the senate, and suggested appropriate titles. He was especially concerned whether he should address the senate in a standing or seated position. The senators responded by giving him the title "His Rotundity" You say he had the reputation for pomposity with some. Unfortunately, for I am a big Adams fan, he had that reputation with many, including some of his friends. Both father and son could be witty, emotional, compassionate, warm and charming, but only with their "intimates" as they described them. I did not mean to pronounce judgement, only to convey their reputation, which I think was fairly done. Both men described themselves at different times as "fussy in the extreme" or cold as ice. With a love of fancy titles and rituals thown in, I think that qualifies, regardless of their private demeanor. If you prefer, I will be glad to replace the offending word, but I would replace it with a synonym of some kind. I think this trait in both men adds to the rich and contradictory nature of their unique personalities. I do not think we have often seen men of the integrity and character of these two men since their time. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on these two men. -- posted by Mugwump53
»
Your article on Adams is excellent. I was about to say I enjoyed it very much when I read it last year, but then I remembered, it's been now almost 2 years. My, how time flies! I took the liberty of reading it again just now, and thought I might continue this discussion by posting a message to it. That way, anyone who may be interested in our little running discussion can read your article as well, which certainly puts it in context. -- posted by Brian Tubbs
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Brian Tubbs
