John Adams ~ David McCullough ~ 12/01 ~ Biography
jane
August 11, 2001 - 04:11 pm
    


     
---by David McCullough

In this powerful, epic biography, David McCullough unfolds the adventurous life-journey of John Adams, the brilliant, fiercely independent, often irascible, always honest Yankee patriot who spared nothing in his zeal for the American Revolution; who rose to become the second President of the United States and saved the country from blundering into an unnecessary war; who was learned beyond all but a few and regarded by some as "out of his senses"; and whose marriage to the wise and valiant Abigail Adams is one of the moving love stories in American history.






Links to John and Abigail Adams


THEMES TO BE ADDRESSED DURING THE DISCUSSION: - The relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the changes that developed over time; and the relationship between John Adams and Benjamin Franklin over time.





Looking at the U.S. government and our American society as it exists today, what features do you identify as attributable to John Adams? What is attributable to Thomas Jefferson? Does the thoughts of one or the other predominate?







Schedule of Discussion
Dec. 13 - Chapter Ten





Contact was: Ella and Harold


Ella Gibbons
October 22, 2001 - 05:34 pm
Dear Friends! This is such a great book that we are not going to keep to any schedule at all. From time to time we will talk about where we are in the book and attempt to keep to the sections that are listed in the CONTENTS in order to make our discussion more meaningful and keep us in some fashion all on the same page, so to speak.

Of course, the first section is the Revolution, and I know we'll be talking about our founding fathers and the principles upon which they spent so much time and John Adams' place among them, his influence, his decisions and, as David McCullough asks, what those self-evident truths were that so many since have risked all for and died for. Where did these men get the courage to defy the great British Empire? Has a country ever been founded in history in such a manner?

Please leave a post and let us know if you will be joining us on November lst - we're going to have a great time together and I hope the heading is short enough that you will not have to scroll down too far to come to the posts.

Harold and I will be changing the questions from time to time in the header, but otherwise than that, this discussion is all your's!

WELCOME EVERYONE - JOIN THE REVOLUTION AND MEET JOHN ADAMS!

GusN
October 22, 2001 - 07:20 pm
I don't have much to say, as a rule, but I did like this book. I'm sure it will be interesting to read all your comments.

robert b. iadeluca
October 23, 2001 - 02:40 am
I expect to participate in this. Will get the book as soon as I can.

Robby

Mrs. Watson
October 23, 2001 - 05:53 am
I'll be here.

Deems
October 23, 2001 - 07:25 am
Me too.

Ella Gibbons
October 23, 2001 - 07:54 am
Welcome and Good Morning to GUS, ROBBY, MRS. WATSON AND MARYAL. So happy you are joining us, we're going to have a good time with this book.

MaryPage
October 23, 2001 - 08:08 am
Sorry 'bout that, Robby, but I'm in here as well. Hi Cousin Maryal; I'll bet you expected me here! Hi again, Ella.

robert b. iadeluca
October 23, 2001 - 08:13 am
What MaryPage means is that I can't seem to escape her. I go to the Virginia Tea Party and she's there. I travel miles to go to the International Bash in Pennsylvania and she's there. I even posted in "Scotland" and guess who was there. Now HERE! To bad we no longer have the discussion group "About Men." Well, I guess we all have our trials and tribulations. I'm not sure which one she is.

Robby

MaryPage
October 23, 2001 - 08:19 am
snort!

and i have had the book for months already ..........

Deems
October 23, 2001 - 09:04 am
YO----Cousin. Of course I thought you would be here!

Robby--Don't you be messing with my kin or I'll have to take steps.

Barbara St. Aubrey
October 23, 2001 - 10:47 am
OHHHH I want so badly to read this with a group - and purposely put off buying the book expecting that y'all were going to start this discussion - but alas I am going to have to miss the first bit - annual autumn trip to my daughter's in SC now over the border NC (the store is still in SC) well any ho' the trip was delayed this year to the first part of November - then I get back just in time to work at the Texas Book Festival and then to my sons for Thanksgiving - I will be with y'all in spirit and post whenever I can - Ella is there a schedule of chapters you plan on covering each week - and also, Ella will there be any focus questions to guide the conversation? Although I understand this book is such a dynamo that if you choose not to have focus questions I bet there will be no lag in developing a thread of discussion.

What a perfect book to help us get back to our roots in this time when we could easily trade safty for freedom -- Thanks for being here now!

Ella Gibbons
October 23, 2001 - 10:56 am
HELLO MARYAL AND BARBARA, SO GLAD YOU ARE JOINING US!

Barbara, Harold and I will be putting up questions from time to time, but as to a schedule we are just going to take our time through this book.

There are three parts to it: (1) REVOLUTION, (2) DISTANT SHORES, and (3) INDEPENDENCE FOREVER. McCullough does this well, very concise, clear sections of the book.

We will begin, of course, with the Revolution only, and when we are all talked out about that, then we'll proceed to France. Hope you make it back while we are still on the Revolution, Barbara.

There are two questions in the header right now that do not pertain to the contents of the book and we thought all of you might want to begin with your opinion as to why this book has been on the bestseller list for weeks. It isn't as if none of us had ever heard of John Adams, so why?

MaryPage
October 23, 2001 - 02:15 pm
(1) NO! Adams' current popularity has entirely to do with McCullough's book and another one published about the same time. McCullough is an excellent and popular writer.

(2) No.

Mrs. Watson
October 23, 2001 - 02:59 pm
I second MaryPage's comments above.

robert b. iadeluca
October 23, 2001 - 04:34 pm
THIRD.

Robby

Barbara St. Aubrey
October 23, 2001 - 04:42 pm
Wasn't Adams featured in that Broadway Play that became a movie about 20 years ago - Cannot remember the name of it but the stage was black without light except for a spotlight on the actor as Adams when he talked, repeating the messages in the letters from his wife during his time away from Mass. while he was engaged in the Revolutionary war - I can see the movie actor in my head but cannot remember the name of the play/movie nor the name of the actor who plays a school teacher on some TV show.

Mrs. Watson
October 23, 2001 - 05:54 pm
Barbara: You' ve been eavesdropping, that's my dialogue. Honest.

betty gregory
October 23, 2001 - 10:39 pm
To support the others' answer to the popularity of the book, the Editor-in-chief at Washington Post Book World (on C-span2, book TV) said that David McCullough spent about a year designing his media tour to sell the book, that he was determined to include every imaginable speaking outlet.

Mrs. Watson
October 24, 2001 - 06:10 am
So, are we mindless sheep? Or do we know a good thing when we see it?

Harold Arnold
October 24, 2001 - 07:09 am
Here are a couple of links that include short biographical sketches of some of the actors in our discussion that is about to begin. The first is a link to bios on all the presidents. Here by clicking Washington, Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams participants can get a bit of fill-in information on the careers of these major participants. American Presidents. Note there is also information of Abigail Adams and Martha Washington at this site.

Another prominent actor in our drama was Benjamin Franklin. For his Biographical sketch click: Benjamin Franklin

Francisca Middleton
October 24, 2001 - 08:14 am
I think that historical figures should be judged against the background of their times, not by changing views. But Jefferson was, it seems to me, equivocal about so many things (including slavery) that it's difficult to pin him down. From both the book, "Founding Brothers" and this one (I"m about halfway through), Jefferson doesn't come off well at all.

I trust McCullough (and even Ellis, in spite of his problems) and am happy to see Adams finally come into his own.

Deems
October 24, 2001 - 08:45 am
I've heard McCullough twice on Book TV, and both times he talked about starting out to write a biography of Jefferson and Adams and worrying that Jefferson would overshadow Adams and that the book would not be balanced. As he continued to do research, he discovered that he really admired Adams and that all he could do in one book was to tell his story. So he dropped Jefferson.

This may or may not be true, but I think that it was more or less Adams' turn to have the spotlight. I don't think it had anything to do with recent revelations about Thomas's extracurricular activities. Those have long been guessed and speculated about.

And it certainly is not unusual for an author to do book tours. McCullough is a good writer who appeals to those of us who are amateur historians. That's enough to account for the book's popularity.

Maryal

betty gregory
October 24, 2001 - 09:55 am
Maryal, I saw McCullough speak on C-span, also, and one other extended interview. From what he said about dropping Jefferson from the book...that there was SO much more about Adams than he was expecting to find...and other comments he made, I was left with the impression that he had the time of his life doing this book. His excitement was evident during his talk and he even mentioned how difficult it was to say goodbye to both Abigail and John at the end of the process. His love of the work on this book is what I thought of immediately when that editor-in-chief of the Washington Post Book World said he worked on the book tour for a year.

Deems
October 24, 2001 - 10:15 am
Betty----Yes, I noticed that same excitement when I watched McCullough. He was completely wrapped up in his subject and sad to leave the Adamses.

Barbara St. Aubrey
October 24, 2001 - 10:36 am
OK Mrs. Watson what is the name of that movie/Broadway play??? I wonder if it is all publicity or just interesting material - Carl Anthony did a book on Harding "Death of America's Most Scandolous President," and it did not receive this acclaim and Michael Beschloss continues to write about Kennedy, Roosevelt and Johnson. Again without this kind of enthusiams from the public. Brands did a comprehensive bio of Benjamin Franklin that took lifting weights to carry the book around but again, we didn't flock to "Sams!!" to purchase the book.

I wonder if the letters between John and Abigal are a factor - they are compelling. But then David McCullough writes books we like to read about subjects that grab our attention and he knows how to publicize his work.

Ella Gibbons
October 24, 2001 - 01:08 pm
Am I correct in interpreting your comments that you do not believe the great popularity of this book to be the result of the current fall from favor in the popular mind of Thomas Jefferson as a result of the recent proof that Jefferson was in fact the father of the several children of Jefferson's teenage slave, Sally Hemmings?

Is it the consensus, then, that it is the reputation of McCullough and his ability to publicize his own books that accounts for the book's prominence on the bestseller list?

Could it also be the fact that there have been very few biographies written of John Adams (noted by McCullough in his acknowledgements) and, also, that he writes biographies of very strong individuals, e.g., Teddy Roosevelt and Truman?

Also, perhaps, McCullough is on the road to doing more presidents - which would you suggest to him?

MaryPage
October 24, 2001 - 01:12 pm
I think the whole mix is what makes this book enticing. The gathering of the men who desired to rebel. The writing of the documents declaring their intentions and forming their new government. The Revolution that almost didn't happen. John's cousin Sam was a trouble maker big time, here, and I get excited just thinking about it. The Revolution that almost didn't succeed. Wow, we won by the hair of our chinny chin chin, truly we did. I know I am simplifying here, but our emotions on this subject are simple.

Finally the basic decency of this man. He had temperament and intransigence, plus other deficiencies, but he was a truly decent human being and without a huge ego, airs, pretensions, arrogance. He was striving for a utopia on earth for all of us to come. He followed his dreams. AND he had a true love affair in his marriage, with a woman who was his equal and who he saw that way. I love this man, and what is more, I admire him.

Harold Arnold
October 24, 2001 - 03:47 pm
After reading the McCullough biography, I’m incline to agree with the several posts that John Adams contribution to the successful prosecution to the revolution itself is sufficient reason for the books popularity and long best seller status. Add to it the exhaustive research and interesting writing style of the author and its best seller status was certain to result. As one post put it, John Adams time had come.

Last winter and spring when I got off from my work at the ITC on Sunday afternoon I would drop by the big San Antonio B & N store and browse and read for a couple of hours. I first read much of the Bradlee autobiography that we later discussed in this manner. More recently I spent time browsing the Jefferson titles now available on the shelves. One time I think I counted 7 separate titles on display (and that day 2 of the more popular titles were absent). My point is that I don’t really think that Thomas Jefferson has lost much of his high status in the popular mind because of the Sally Hemings incident. As an earlier post mention that affair had been rumored for a long time. Based on the amount of current TJ titles out there today, Thomas Jefferson seems quite alive and well.

Here is an interesting Thomas Jefferson title that delves into the Hemings relationship in some details. Understanding Thomas Jefferson

ALF
October 24, 2001 - 03:55 pm
Count me in! It was McCullough himself who persuaded me to join. He just twinkled when he spoke of Abigail and her love for John. He twinkled with glee!!

robert b. iadeluca
October 24, 2001 - 05:11 pm
I agree with MaryPage regarding the "the basic decency of this man."

He had the certain personality trait which seems to come down to our New Englanders today -- wanting to do what is right whether it makes them popular or not.

Live free or die.

Robby

MaryPage
October 24, 2001 - 05:18 pm
going into a dead faint here..........

robert b. iadeluca
October 24, 2001 - 05:20 pm
Don't let it go to your head. John Adams wouuldn't approve of that emotional outburst.

Robby

bekka
October 24, 2001 - 06:25 pm
I'm here. I bought this book back in June. I got all excited when I saw that it was going to be discussed here. I've read about 50 pages so far and it's a fine book.

On the questions:

1. No, I don't think that Jefferson's "fall from favor" has anything to do with the popularity of this book. Rather, the revelations regarding Jefferson's private life may actually enhance the interest in other historical figures. They may have had more interesting lives than previously thought.

Another reason this book is so popular is that McCullough is a fine biographer, as evidenced by "Truman." Furthermore, McCullough went to great lengths to make sure that word of this book (and his admiration for Adams) got the appropriate media coverage.

2. My job as a "student" of history is to better understand the times about which I am reading. If that's what I'm trying to do, I ought to be limiting, as much as possible, moral judgements from my generation. Now this is easy to do with someone like Adams. With Jefferson it's more problematical.

Am I then to judge them by their own moral standards? I doubt if I could do that. There were many different opinions of moral standards then too. Am I to skip moral judgements? I doubt if I could (or would in some cases) do that either. So where is the line?

There isn't a line. I have to somehow determine whether or not a person's actions are reprehensible or heroic enough to stand the scrutiny of a kind of "universal set" of moral judgements (just as genocide is "universally" bad, other actions are "heroic").

Enough already, that's my 2$ worth, considering inflation.

becky

Ella Gibbons
October 25, 2001 - 06:07 am
WELCOME BECKY!


An interesting point - "the revelations regarding Jefferson's private life may actually enhance the interest in other historical figures."

Posssibly true and I agree we cannot judge morality from present day standards.

Elizabeth N
October 25, 2001 - 01:24 pm
Even before the horrible events of 911 I was mulling over the surprising popularity of this book. The writing is wonderful--that's a lot of it------but I do believe there has been a dawning consciousness of America getting too far afield of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And here we have a readable, serious, instructive reminder. I know I read it in that spirit--although I can't get over here until Shipping News is over.

Deems
October 25, 2001 - 01:37 pm
I wonder if some of the obvious current interest in books about our Founding Fathers --and Mothers in this case--may have something to do with all the hoopla over Tom Brokaw's "greatest generation" nomenclature.

I don't like picking "greatest" and "best" very much, especially when we are in the river of history and don't stand at a place where such a determination could be made; however, a very good argument could be made that the generation that guided the founding of this nation is--so far--the greatest of all. They absolutely astonish me every time I read about them.

maryal

robert b. iadeluca
October 25, 2001 - 03:07 pm
By time the latest catastrophe comes to an end -- which could be years -- the current generation might very well be called the "greatest generation."

Robby

Deems
October 25, 2001 - 03:14 pm
Yes, Robby, they may well earn that designation!

Harold Arnold
October 25, 2001 - 08:12 pm
Here are links to biographical material on three leaders in England during the time of the American Revolution.

King George, III

Lord North

Lord Rockingham

A google search failed to turn up anything on Lord Cagmarthen who was the 33 year old Foreign Minister in 1785 when Adams became the American Ambasador.

Ella Gibbons
October 25, 2001 - 10:25 pm
Thanks, Harold, all three of those powerful rulers in England were deeply affected by what was happening in the Colonies at the time, and most of those activities were happening in Boston, which I have only visited once in my life and it was so many years ago I have forgotten most of those buildings that I saw.

I remember the old North Church, Faneuil Hall - the Boston Commons (where I saw my first helicopter and it landed right on the Commons and amazed me no end). What other buildings are there? Those of you who know please tell me.

I do remember the footsteps leading you all around the historical buildings and at the time they were in a rough section of downtown Boston - is it still the same? I'd love to go back again.

MaryPage
October 26, 2001 - 05:03 am
ELLA, seems like yesterday I went there and did all that, plus the wonderful museums, restaurants, and a great play. That was 1985, and haven't been back since. Did you see the ship, what was its name, that Old Sam Adams and his Sons of Liberty threw the British tea off of? It was there to be toured when I was there. Or was it a copy of the original ship? Calcification of the brain here.........

Ella Gibbons
October 26, 2001 - 09:07 am
You've been there more recently than I, MaryPage - would you believe it was in the '60's that I was there and just for a day. We didn't even get to the harbor that day, my sister and I, and I remember starting to roam down one street and a policeman stopped us and told us it was not a very good neighborhood and suggested we not go there.

What a shame. So many old neighborhoods are being revitalized in our city and I was hoping Boston would have cleaned up their "act" around those historic buildings

Francisca Middleton
October 26, 2001 - 10:09 am
I was there in about 1987 or 88 and thought everything was in great shape. We wandered the historic area plus some more..I was with a friend who could even point out Julia Child's house! It's a wonderful city to visit, especially if you're a history buff.

I was amazed when we went to see the Adams' birthplace home (it was closed, but we peeked in the windows) at how SMALL it was!

FranM

Ann Alden
October 26, 2001 - 06:03 pm
Barbara

The Broadway musical and maybe movie about the Constitution with, I believe, John Adams telling the story was "1776". Fun play! I was told recently that it came from a book titled "Letters to Abigal". I have another book with the private letters of Abigal and John Adams but its not that one. I am reading at this time, "America Afire" whose first paragraph, nay, sentence, is about John Adams leaving DC at 4am to avoid being at the inaugaration of Jefferson. This book covers the 1890's. I have only read the first chapter of "John Adams" so far. I also have an interesting article about Adams which was in the Ohio Historical magazine last month. But will mention that later.

Ella Gibbons
October 27, 2001 - 01:49 am
HELLO FRAN AND ANN!

Fran, Adams home was in Quincy, MA (formerly Braintree) I believe - is that now a suburb of Boston - how far out? There's a picture of it in the book and if you think that is small, you should visit Thomas Edison's birthplace in Milan, Ohio. One room!

Ann, wasn't that play made into a movie? I think I saw it but can't remember the details, a skinny little fellow played Adams, the only resemblance to Adams was in the wig he wore.

I'll answer my own question - I wish McCullough would write a bio of Woodrow Wilson, the First WW, his 14 points of Light (that were laughed at in Europe) and the League of Nations. Other than that, I know very little of him and nothing of his personal life. Joseph Persico is a very good biographer also - his Colin Powell was superb and I'm reading Edward R. Murrow right now.

Harold Arnold
October 27, 2001 - 07:15 am
Ella, A biography of Woodrow Wilson would make and interesting and I suspect a controversial and revealing one. Balanced against the good of the policy of international cooperation would be a rather sorry civil rights record that failed to take a stand against the re-emerging KKK and growing race discrimination through much of the land. This was one of the points used by James Loewen in his recent book, "Lies My (History) Teacher Told Me." See the Achieve of our last year's discussion: Archieve: Lies My Teacher Told Me

MaryPage
October 27, 2001 - 08:28 am
Wilson was very much in agreement with the thinking of the KKK, and I like him not.

bekka
October 27, 2001 - 07:44 pm
You know I've been thinking that perhaps a part of the reason that this book is so popular is that there are precious few biographies of political figures about whom the author actually, really and truly, feels a great admiration. It's great to read about a hero.

becky

Mrs. Watson
October 27, 2001 - 08:32 pm
Good point, Becky.

tigerliley
October 28, 2001 - 04:53 am
I have orderd the book and will be following along and reading your discussion.....

Francisca Middleton
October 28, 2001 - 09:20 am
I've come to the place in the McCullough book where he questions the story that Adams left in order to snub Jefferson. First, there was no precedent for him to go by; second, he may not have been invited; but most telling of all: the stage he needed to get (a public stage, not a private carriage) left at 4:00am.

FranMMMMMMM

Francisca Middleton
October 28, 2001 - 09:23 am
Harold, I think your typing finger slipped when you were looking up "Lord Carmarthen"-- google gave a number of references to him.

FranMMMMMMMM

Ella Gibbons
October 28, 2001 - 09:30 am
THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE COMMENTS - I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL WE OPEN THIS DISCUSSION. THERE IS JUST SO MUCH TO TALK ABOUT - I'M BRIMMING WITH QUESTIONS, IDEAS!

I have to ask Becky and Mrs. W. this, however. And I think I'll put that up in the heading - What is a hero? Does John Adams fit the description? Should all those that were involved in the Revolution be considered heros?

We will be putting up new questions in the heading from time to time to spark new ideas and, I hope, you will be thinking of some yourself.

We want a lively discussion with agreements and disagreements and your thoughts on each subject, similar to those who met in the Continental Congress in 1774. They all came with preconceived ideas - how did they ever reach an agreement? What a difficult task to create a rebellion and attempt to get a society of people from all walks of life, so to speak, to join in?

Weren't they brave? Or foolish? Would you have done it at the time, knowing that the British could hang you at any time for treason against the King of England?

AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INTEREST! just can't wait, just can't wait, just can't wait, just can't wait

Harold Arnold
October 28, 2001 - 12:53 pm
Harold, I think your typing finger slipped when you were looking up "Lord Carmarthen"-- google gave a number of references to him.


Hey Francisca, I may have misspelled Carmart.... I am after all the worlds worst speller and an even worst typist. The odds are always good I will enter a misspelled word that hardly ever works.

I did the search again and true you are right there are many hits on the "Lord Carmarthen" search string. I looked pretty close on the first 3 pages of the hits and I still could not identify one that has any worth while facts about him, Many pretain to a completely different Lord, such as Lord Byron. Many concern the town of Carmarthen and its socker or cricket team. I think I did identify one that mentioned a late 18th century event in the House of Lords, that would forced his resignation. I did not find any that really added anything about the Lord Carmarthen who was foreign minister when JA was ambasador.

Ann Alden
October 29, 2001 - 06:48 am
Checking in my Letters of Abigal and John Adams and in "American Afire", I find that John Adams was definitely a Congregationalist. At least that was what he wrote in his letters to Abigal. Not finding that denomination in Philadelphia, he tried several other churches there. None were as soothing to him as his own in Braintree. But that's so true of many of us. Many times, what made an impression on us as children remains our church of choice.

BaBi
October 29, 2001 - 08:27 am
I am loving this book, and looking forward to discussing it with this group. (Now I can stop bugging my daughter with: "Oh, listen to this!") I heartily agree with Bekka that it is so refreshing to read a biography of a historical figure that doesn't leave us disappointed. ...Babi

Ella Gibbons
October 29, 2001 - 09:29 am
HEY, HEY, HEY, - we got three days to discuss the two questions in the heading. Look up!

WAS JOHN ADAMS A HERO?
IN YOUR OPINION, WHO IS A HERO?

MaryPage
October 29, 2001 - 10:15 am
YES!

Someone who desires Good Things for all mankind, and puts his life on the line in an attempt to achieve those good things.

MegR
October 29, 2001 - 12:37 pm
Have had this book for a while & just picked it up last night to start reading. Remembered that SN had an upcoming discussion on it & decided to check this site. I'm confused. (not an out-of-the-ordinary situation!) Were we supposed to have read the entire book before the discussion started????? I've only read 4 or 5 pages so far, and feel grossly inadequate to even consider issues raised for discussion above: JA as a hero? JA's relationships w/ others. These all imply a completed reading of the text to me. Am I too late for this one?

Harold Arnold
October 29, 2001 - 01:45 pm
MegR, Though I prefer to have read the entire book when the discussion begins, I don't think it at all unusual for participants to read along with the discussion. You are certainly welcome to participate in that maner.

We don't have a real firm schedule for completion but I think it will carry on at least until Xmas and maybe a bit longer after a Xmas break. This will require and average of something like 85 - 90 pages a week, not too much for the average reader. What are your thoughts on this Ella?

robert b. iadeluca
October 29, 2001 - 01:50 pm
I was planning to buy the book this week. I had wanted to participate in this but I don't think my schedule allows me time to do 85-90 pages weekly.

Robby

Wilan
October 29, 2001 - 04:48 pm
I have not started the book yet-want to read along with the discussion-usually read ahead and then have trouble remembering what I can't talk about! Yes, Adams was a hero according to my ideal for heroes. Someone who puts his/her beliefs and love before their own fears for self preservation. I really think that the world could not survive without heroes! I am not sure if the British soldiers were all heroes-some of them were, no doubt, but many of them were there because they were sort of 'cannon fodder'. We have that in our own country-not as much, since we went volunteer, but it still exists! There are many heroes (accordiong to my description) that I do not agree with, but heroes, no less.

I was born, brought up in and love the city of Boston. Braintree, Quincy are about thirty miles south of Boston. Boston has definitely cleaned up it's act and is probably one of the best cities to visit and live in in the country. The complete area is a history lesson, a combination of the old and the new!

See you all when the discussion begins! I am in the middle of Colin Powell's Bio. Am fascinated Wilan

Ella Gibbons
October 29, 2001 - 06:31 pm
WELCOME MEG! SO HAPPY YOU ARE JOINING US!

Harold and I purposely did not put up a schedule as we want the group to lead the way - it's your discussion, you decide. It's a long book, entails so much of our history, good reading, great writing, and Harold and I are both looking forward to this discussion - a bestseller both on the NYT list for weeks, a bestseller and the best discussion ever right here in our own B&L.

We don't care if you read 3 or 30 pages a day as long as you are satisfied that you are keeping up with the conversation. The first chapter entitled THE ROAD TO PHILADELPHIA is 61 pages in length and is full of delightful details of Adams' early life, marriage, ideas, hopes, plans, education, etc. See - it's a detailed book, a great book!

THOSE QUESTIONS I PUT IN THE HEADING are just general questions while we are waiting for November lst to open our discussion.

WHAT IS A HERO? MaryPage says a hero is "Someone who desires Good Things for all mankind and puts his life on the line in an attempt to achieve those good things. but who is the "someone?"

The British soldier put his life on the line for what he believed was a good thing.

The southern soldier in the Civil War desired good things for he perceived was his country.

Hitler, no doubt, thought he was doing the best thing for Germany, didn't he?

Who is to judge?

Robin Hood - well, a modern day Robin Hood - would be willing to put his life on the line for the good of mankind - spread the riches around a bit, wouldn't he?

It's a complex question - heroics, and I don't know if it can be answered.

But, ROBBY AND MEGAN be assured that it is not too late, read a few pages now and then and you will be able to keep up fine!

Harold and I will be here until the end of the book, the end of the discussion, the last person turns out the light, and says Goodnight!

Ella Gibbons
October 29, 2001 - 06:42 pm
WILAN, WELCOME!

Am having a bit of trouble with my computer tonight, wasn't sure that last post made it here, but happy to know you DID!

You obviously like biographies too! I have Colin Powell's bio right here on my bookshelf (and it was good) - the author, Joseph Persico, is very good writer. I'm reading, when I have time, a book he wrote about Edward R. Murrow, and can hardly put it down. Do you remember Murrow, the guy with smoke in front of his face all the time he was on TV? But a great broadcaster, the father of the modern-day news broadcaster, and the broadcast he did from London after he rode in a Lancaster bomber over Berlin gives me chills! He won all sorts of awards for that one.

P.S. Wilan - thanks for the info about Boston and Quincy. Glad to know Boston is all cleaned up and all the historic sites are preserved in a good neighborhood so all can roam around to their heart's content. Do want to revisit it someday.

MegR
October 29, 2001 - 09:59 pm
Have found Joseph Campbell's definitions in his The Power of Myth to be rather clear and concise delineators for this. He basically talks about the universal hero (i.e. - someone that any culture can acknowledge as a hero - not just a local or national figure who is admired - but rather as someone who is accepted as a hero universally). Know many folks have some problems w/ some of Campbell's other ideas, but his take on the hero makes sense for me. What do you think?

I'm citing from Chapter V, The Hero's Adventure in the text above. Parenthesis stuff ='s my inclusions of info that J.C. includes later in chapter.

Acc. to Campbell, a hero is 1)"someone who has found or done something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience" [for the good of others] or, 2) "someone who has given (literally or figuratively) his or her life to something bigger than oneself" [for the good of others]. Regardless of whether one does something extraordinary or sacrifices one's life, this "act/deed" is only "heroic" if it includes a moral imperative and results in something that ennobles or enriches or enlightens society/humankind.

The hero's deed can be physical or spiritual & the "hero" can intentionally go on the hero's quest or can also be unintentionally forced to cope with a situation.

Examples: Beowulf = intentional hero; he chose to go to Hrothgar's land & battle Grendel.

Odysseus = unintentional hero; he didn't want to go trot off to Troy to drag back that hussy Helen! Odysseus was one of the first attempted "draft dodgers - tried to pull an insanity plea w/ sowing salt to avoid going off to war. His bluff was called & he had to set sail w/ old Agamemnon & Menalaus, even though he really wanted to stay in Ithaca.

Does this help or make any sense?

I'll try to plug into this discussion as it develops & as I read. To be honest, I'm a little uncomfortable about discussing the book as a whole, rather than w/ reading & discussing portions at a time. I find that when there's a rich, dense-text and long work that I have a very hard time locating or recalling specific details/sections from it to support discussion points. Just don't trust my faulty memory when it has to encompass so much at once - especially on a first read-through. This will be a different format for me. Will give it a try.

P.S. Nice to see some familiar names from House of Sand & Fog! This will be an adventure!

ALF
October 30, 2001 - 06:17 am
Hnnn! All of these descriptions define my Dad. Heroes, must be like beauty is perceived-- it is all in the eye of the beholder. My dad was a paragon, an ideal model of what a man as well as a hero should be.

Louise Licht
October 30, 2001 - 07:53 am
I've been waiting for months for us to get to Samuel Adams. The book has been staring at me in my den, as too is "The Founding Brothers."

So now is the time -- for me to delve! And I have made a tiny dent. The portrayal of Sam Adams on his way to Philadelphia is wonderful. The authors' use of desriptive verbiage sets an exciting stage.

My husband adored both books, I anticipate a great discussion.

Louise

Ella Gibbons
October 30, 2001 - 08:18 am
HELLO LOUISE! INDEED TIME TO DELVE INTO JOHN ADAMS LIFE

And with a grand group, too! I'm so impressed by all of you who want to read along with us. We have the perfect book for a group of this size to discuss.

MEG, BE ASSURED we will not - (NOT) - be discussing this book as a whole. That would be impossible, and I had no intention of saying that - what I did say was we will go slowly and take our time as there is so much to absorb.

We are starting with the first chapter only - THE ROAD TO PHILADELPHIA.

Intentional or unintentional heros that have performed a deed to benefit mankind. Why are some of us relating all heros to wars or death in wars?

ANDY'S hero is her father! A good man, undoubtedly, and a hero in her eyes.

Any other suggestions as to how we can define a HERO?

Harold Arnold
October 30, 2001 - 08:57 am
At first blush, JA it would seem would not qualify as a universal hero under the Joseph Campbell definition as given by MegR in #65, but a case can be made that he does. First there can be no doubt that he qualifies as a local New England and American hero. Going a step further it could be argued that he is also an English hero. As one of the 1940’s American long poems pointed out (was it “Western star?), the English colonists in the very act of rebellion were never more English. They were carrying on in North America in the 1770’s what had been begun a century and a quarter earlier with the glorious revolution and the execution of King Charles I. Though the English republican experiment failed it was largely because of the extreme sectarian nature of the movement and the failure to provide a government plan for continuation after the passing of the leaders. But during the next century the English government transformed into a form that based on JA’s writings, would be deemed arguably quite acceptable. And continuing today, I think most of the democratic world could accept JA as a Universal Hero, even under the Campbell definition.

Ella Gibbons
October 30, 2001 - 09:21 am
Thanks, Harold, but in some eyes (particularly those of the Muslim world) our founding fathers unwittingly created an imperialistic nation that attempts to spread an unwanted form of government into all parts of the world. Would they consider John Adams a universal hero?

We have in the last few decades become more a global world and America faces many anxious moments at present. As John Adams said to Abigail in one of his letters, "We live, my dear soul, in an age of trial. What will be the consequence, I know not."

I have put a notation in the heading that we will begin our discussion with Chapter One. Let us go forth from there as a group.

MaryPage
October 30, 2001 - 09:22 am
Charles I

Harold Arnold
October 30, 2001 - 09:39 am
Thanks Mary for the correction. It was definitely Charles I that was executed. It was his son, Charles II who was restored in 1660. When I read your message I edited the error I made in Message 69.

Note that Ella’s post #63 best defines the schedule. I think the key words are: ”.... WE WANT THE GROUP TO LEAD THE WAY - IT'S YOUR DISCUSSION, YOU DECIDE. .... We don't care if you read 3 or 30 pages a day as long as you are satisfied that you are keeping up with the conversation .... Harold and I will be here until the end of the book, the end of the discussion, the last person turns out the light, and says Goodnight!”

While my message #60 mentioning 85 – 90 pages a week would get us through about Xmas we do not need to finish that early by any means.

tigerliley
October 30, 2001 - 10:16 am
I find hero's among my ordinary friends and aquaintences....those who volunteer their time selflessly to their library's, parks, nursing homes, schools etc. A lady friend of mine who is caring for her 90 year old mother in law is also a hero in my estimation.

Deems
October 30, 2001 - 02:19 pm
I understand Campbell's definition and I hear what Ella is saying about differing points of view. Perhaps it is best to qualify and say that John Adams is an American hero.

And Beowulf is a fictional character. I can think of a number of "heroes" in fiction. But in the real world of history, I don't much care for the word.

Maryal

betty gregory
October 30, 2001 - 03:27 pm
I'm willing to follow whatever format or timeline is developed by the 2 discussion leaders, including the stated "leaving it to" us. Before we get started, however, I'd just like to state a preference. Although I want everyone to have a chance to participate, I'd really prefer a not-too-slow, written schedule. Even something as loose as "first half in November and 2nd half in December." So, at the end of November, we wrap up the first half on time, no matter what. I'm sure the discussion will be successful either way, but I'd like to have some boundaries stated (and we stick to them), so that decisions can be made about participation in January book discussions, etc. As I said, though, if the format turns out to be looser than that and we wander into January (or longer), I'll adjust. It's a great book and a great group. We'll do fine. (I'm trying to shake myself and recall that I usually DO like trying new things and, of course, I like participants making decisions, so who knows where this need for a stated format is coming from.)

Ella Gibbons
October 30, 2001 - 06:15 pm
HELLO TIGERLILEY! I agree - those selfless folk who give of their time and talent to help others are heros. Reminds me of those police and firemen who recently died at the WTC to save lives. We could say they were just doing their jobs, knew the risks, but they were heros to those they helped to save.

Yes, there are all kinds of heros, MARYALthanks for your comments.

And come on, BETTY , what is life without a little risk! B-O-R-I-N-G! Can't promise we will stick to any schedule, but take the risk!

Jonathan
October 30, 2001 - 10:40 pm
The answers so far certainly show that the qestion is a good way to start a discussion of his life and role in American history. I find it difficult to think of John Adams as a hero. But I have no difficulty of thinking of his achievments, as a man, privately, and as a public person as being heroic. You used that word too, Ella. I like it. As for heroism, I too was going to mention the recent examples of the fire and police persons...going UP the smoke-filled stair wells. And all the others engaged the in dangerous rescue efforts in the days which followed. Really, one should build a mile-high monument to them on the site.

On the other hand, the hero of the book was such a remarkable man, worthy of the greatest admiration and respect...but it just occurred to me...that very special lady in the book...surely everyone will agree that she was the perfect heroine. It's her book too, isn't it?

Ann Alden
October 31, 2001 - 06:17 am
Heroes both!! I was just going to say that two of them together made a heroic couple for their country. In "America Rising" by Bernard Weisberger, he quotes John Adams as saying,

"I will swim or sink, live or die, survive or perish with my country." Not Massachusetts, not New England, but "my country." He held nothing back. The years in Congress meant the sacrifice of his practice and income, a heavy burden for a man with a family. Even heavier were the long periods of separation from Abigail, whom he addressed as his "Dear Friend" in letters that would arrive in the post rider's bag or a sailing vellel weeks after they were written. The two were virtually in separate worlds, she managing the children and the farm alone in the confusion and upheaval of revolution and he, except for brief leaves of absence, consumed by the relentless grind of duty.

And, what was accomplished, in the end, certainly took patience, fortitude and heroism.

tigerliley
October 31, 2001 - 06:25 am
I wonder what JA would have thought about the "Homeland" title now being used for our country....somehow it just doesn't ring right for me. I must say I don't like it much.

MaryPage
October 31, 2001 - 06:33 am
I believe the question as to whether ADAMS was a hero is amply answered on page 158, line 6.

I tend to agree, as is often the case, with Betty, with the exception that I don't think we can think of this book in halves. Our author has divided it into 3 parts, which are definitely not thirds. I make PART I to be 163 pages, PART II to be 218 pages, and PART III to be 262 pages. I think it would be the most natural thing in the world to read the book in those 3 obvious sections, allowing a little longer to finish each in turn.

ALF
October 31, 2001 - 06:38 am
I am in agreement with Mary Page.

Mrs. Watson
October 31, 2001 - 07:13 am
Said the white rabbit, I'm late, I'm late. I will be joining this discussion when I've caught up on my reading,so see you then.

Ella Gibbons
October 31, 2001 - 02:53 pm
HELLO JONATHAN, GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE. Oh, we'll have a good time discussing the heroine of this book, don'tcha know! You do notice the majority of us here are women? Hahahaha Hope you will join us!

ANN, YES INDEED, AN HEROIC COUPLE But, wait, you are ahead of us in the book - we have much to talk about and we ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR TIME.

WHAT DO THE REST OF YOU THINK ABOUT THE NEW CABINET MEMBER TITLED "HOMELAND SECRETARY?" I agree, TIGERLILEY, it sounds very different and he is one busy fellow - certainly giving the Treasury Secretary much to do! Lot of bookkeeping going on! But wrong period in history - back, back!

THE GROUP DECIDES, ALF AND MARYPAGE, on how we discuss the book - let's give it awhile and see how we get along on this journey. If it's too slow the drivers up there on the carriage seat behind those big horses might crack the whip a bit and get all of you "OVER THE RIVER AND THROUGH THE SNOW - in time to get to Grandmother's house for Thanksgiving. HOW I WISH!

HEY, HEY, HEY, MRS. W. - HURRY UP, DON'T BE LATE! YOU'VE GOT AN IMPORTANT DATE

SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW FOR OPENING DAY - WE'LL BE HITCHING UP THE TEAM EARLY!

Deems
October 31, 2001 - 04:03 pm
O! This IS going to be exciting. I had no IDEA that we had horses and a driver. I'm feeling extraordinarily eighteenth century all of a sudden.

Harold Arnold
October 31, 2001 - 08:20 pm
The horses Ella is talking about in her message #83 are the 6 white horses that powered George Washington’s coach taking him to his first inauguration. And tomorrow we get underway for real. See you then!.

Ella Gibbons
November 1, 2001 - 04:45 am
Those questions in the heading are for the first section of the book - THE REVOLUTION. We'll refer to them from time to time. BUT HURRY, hurry, climb in the carriage, watch your step……

THE HORSES ARE RESTLESS, stomping and snorting, let's all wrap up warmly on this crisp but lovely autumn day and be on our way to Braintree, Massachusetts and MEET JOHN ADAMS!

As we travel on our journey do you feel as though you are back in the 18th century and getting a good look at the landscape and the culture of this little village? What impresses you the most?

Did you feel that McCullough gave you all the information about JA's character and personality that you needed to form an opinion?

MaryPage
November 1, 2001 - 06:26 am
(1)JOHN ADAMS. I'd be afraid of just how friendly Thomas Jefferson would want to be. Also, he was very spoiled and full of himself, despite his great ideas and abilities. Adams knew how to be a true friend.

(2)He chose George Washington to head the Continental Army. He wrote an internationally-read piece about the rights of Americans to Freedom. He pushed for beginning an American Navy and wrote up the first set of rules and regulations for this service. He introduced into the Congress the first resolution that the colonies assume all powers of government. He, more than any other, and certainly more than Jefferson, who did not address the congress, pushed for the unanimous approval of the Declaration of Independence. He headed the first Board of War, looking after every detail of our maintaining an Army. He was the first to propose a Military Academy (West Point). The British were prepared to pardon others, but John Adams they had slated to be hanged if captured. All this before the Revolutionary War was won! I do not believe he would have been prominent outside of Massachusetts if the Revolution had not taken place.

bekka
November 1, 2001 - 07:03 am
MaryPage covered it but I'd like to ask, if there had been no Revolution, what could John Adams have done to gain prominence? I doubt there would have been much available in that time. In another time he might have been in the forefront of the abolition movement or some other great cause. But I think that the times made the man here, the potential was there, but a "call" was needed for Adams to get going. Not a big self-starter.

becky

Ella Gibbons
November 1, 2001 - 10:26 am
Goodness, goodness! And that is truly a statement for this book - a good book!

But, MARYPAGE AND BECKY, you are going so fast through this book and I think missing all the exquisite details that McCullough has treated us to in the characters, the landscape, the people, the village of Braintree, JA's family, the way folks lived, etc.

I did not mean to answer those questions in the heading right away - they were put there to think about as we progress through this section of the book.

Let's just take the first chapter and answer the questions posed:

As we travel on our journey do you feel as though you are back in the 18th century and getting a good look at the landscape and the culture of this little village? What impresses you the most?

Did you feel that McCullough gave you all the information about JA's character and personality that you needed to form an opinion?


I would add is there something missing from the first chapter that you would like to have known?

Harold Arnold
November 1, 2001 - 11:31 am
In Chapter one I think McCullough is tell us something of how the Adams Family and for that matter the North American Colonial population came to change their view of themselves from loyal English subjects who happened to be living in a remote land, to something else that eventually led to an independent America..

One of the most intriguing history books that I have read in the past 5 years was As Various As Their Land, by Stephanie Grauman Wolf. This is a social history of the English North American colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries. Its shows how from a long beginning as loyal transplanted Englishmen, the colonists in the 1760’s, almost to their surprise, came to realize they were no longer English, but had come to be something else, Americans.

In the first chapter of the McCullough book I certainly see this message repeated. Though John Adams and his family did not figure much in the French Indian War, the event certainly had a great effect on the colonies in general. At the beginning of the war in the mid 1750’s, the Colonists certainly thought of themselves as English, and many fought for the British. Prominent colonials participating included George Washington who as a young militia officer received his early military training and experience. (For a short overview of the history of the War see Brief History of the French Indian War ). At the conclusion of the war the colonists remained loyal Englishmen and McCullough quotes John Adams on page 43 as saying at that time, “I rejoiced that I was an Englishman, and gloried in the name of Britain.” I think this was the general feeling among all the North American colonies in 1763 when the war ended.

But how quickly outlooks change. It does appear to have been the Stamp Act that put the cost of the war on the North American Colonists that caused the break. Even a rather quick repeal of the act was insufficient to put the released genie back. McCullough details how quickly John Adams disassociated himself from the Tory faction by refusing to accept a local Crown appointment. In contrast his friend Jonathan Sewall accepted such an appointment and by the end of Chapter 1 had left North American shores. By that time, 1774, John Adams was a member of the Continental Congress and it was only two years before the 2nd Congress would declare Independence.

One of my all time favorite cartoons was in the old, now long dead, “Saturday Review of Literature” about 1947. It showed two colonial types before a bulletin board outside Independence Hall it Philadelphia. In the background, in the tower the bell pealed its message of Independence. One of the characters reading the posted text of the Declaration of Independence, remarked, “Its not so much the lack of representation as the tax itself that bothers me.” My interpretation today of the history as presented by McCullough in our book and elsewhere, is that the facts show that the cartoon was incorrect, and that the lack of representation did matter a great deal. It was the light in which the colonists realized they were no longer English but had evolved into Americans.

Harold Arnold
November 1, 2001 - 11:45 am
In Chapter one I think McCullough is tell us something of how the Adams Family and for that matter the North American Colonial population came to change their view of themselves from loyal English subjects who happened to be living in a remote land, to something else that eventually led to an independent America..

One of the most intriguing history books that I have read in the past 5 years was As Various As Their Land, by Stephanie Grauman Wolf. This is a social history of the English North American colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries. Its shows how from a long beginning as loyal transplanted Englishmen, the colonists in the 1760’s, almost to their surprise, came to realize they were no longer English, but had come to be something else, Americans.

In the first chapter of the McCullough book I certainly see this message repeated. Though John Adams and his family did not figure much in the French Indian War, the event certainly had a great effect on the colonies in general. At the beginning of the war in the mid 1750’s, the Colonists certainly thought of themselves as English, and many fought for the British. Prominent colonials participating included George Washington who as a young militia officer received his early military training and experience. (For a short overview of the history of the War see Brief History of the French Indian War ). At the conclusion of the war the colonists remained loyal Englishmen and McCullough quotes John Adams on page 43 as saying at that time, “I rejoiced that I was an Englishman, and gloried in the name of Britain.” I think this was the general feeling among all the North American colonies in 1763 when the war ended.

But how quickly outlooks change. It does appear to have been the Stamp Act that put the cost of the war on the North American Colonists that caused the break. Even a rather quick repeal of the act was insufficient to put the released genie back. McCullough details how quickly John Adams disassociated himself from the Tory faction by refusing to accept a local Crown appointment. In contrast his friend Jonathan Sewall accepted such an appointment and by the end of Chapter 1 had left North American shores. By that time, 1774, John Adams was a member of the Continental Congress and it was only two years before the 2nd Congress would declare Independence.

One of my all time favorite cartoons was in the old, now long dead, “Saturday Review of Literature” about 1947. It showed two colonial types before a bulletin board outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In the background in the tower, the bell pealed its message of Independence. One of the characters reading the posted text of the Declaration of Independence, remarked, “Its not so much the lack of representation as the tax itself that bothers me.” My interpretation today of the history as presented by McCullough in our book and elsewhere, is that the facts show that the cartoon was incorrect, and that the lack of representation did matter a great deal.

Deems
November 1, 2001 - 02:09 pm
I thought some of you might like to read about the proposed memorial to John Adams in Washington, DC. Here's a link to today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21283-2001Oct31.html

John Murphree
November 1, 2001 - 03:01 pm
So far I have read not quite half the book. I like to think in terms of how it impresses me as I read. I did feel like I were back in time. This Biography is so well written and well documented it has a believable ring. Of course JOHN ADAMS is a hero. He is the hero of the book. He wasn't a perfect person but he had such high ideals and such a great work ethic it made him a person who excelled.

It is obvious that he was a leader who was willing to sacrifice for the principles in which he believed. He early on favored a declaration of Independence. His influence in the Congress was exceptional. I was impressed by the fact that he stayed in there separated from his wife when he would rather have been home except for the dedication which had for freedom.

These are just thoughts which come to me without referring back to the text. One test, for me, of a good book is whether I want to spend time with, whether I enjoy picking it up and continuing. And this is the case with David McCullough's JOHN ADAMS. I am not a scholar but I know what I like and I like this book.

--- Papa John

Ella Gibbons
November 1, 2001 - 04:03 pm
Thanks, Harold, for that enlightening post and information you have given us - the link to the book "As Various as their Land" by Wolf looks very good - I'm going to look that up. Here's a provocative quote from the publisher: "In 1700, ten sparsely settled colonies clung precariously to the Atlantic coast of the vast American continent, each far more firmly attached to the Old World by ties of politics, economy, and culture than they were to each other. By 1800, sixteen states, united by a common government, were poised to exploit the seemingly endless resources of a new and independent nation.

We are amazed if we think about it that these people, who were British for the most part, were able to not only change their identity, but establish a form of government that has proven to be so effective in good and bad times. Heroes indeed.

Have any of you been watching The Education of Max Bickford on Sunday evenings. I catch it when I can, I like it, although I switch back and forth between it and Brian Lamb's Booknotes on C-Span 2 which I have always watched. A female character on the program is a Cultural Historian and I had never thought of that before, but I see a reviewer of this book mentioning it in this way:

"This welcome addition to the literature on social and cultural history makes enjoyable and interesting reading. . . . On virtually every topic, from cooking to nightlife, Green tries, with considerable success, to balance his analyses of middle- and upper-middle-class ways with those of individuals fartherdown the socioeconomic scale. . . . His treatment of gender roles and of changing ideas of health and cleanliness is very solid. His discussions of the rise of consumer culture and women's roles in the household are excellent. .


McCullough has done this very well in the first section of this book in describing Adams' early life, that of his parents and wife.

MARYAL: - Good link, thanks for that! Indeed, yes, there are many sites in Washington for memorials, we do not need any more arguments about the Mall! And when are you going to tell us how you are related to our hero, John Adams?

PAPA JOHN says "I am not a scholar but I know what I like and I like this book." There are no scholars here - and I think we all agree we are here because we like the book. YOU ARE RIGHT ON! Keep your comments, coming and Welcome to our group

I put a few quotes in the heading that I liked (a DL's prerogative), but I'll remove them when the heading gets too unwieldy.

Harold Arnold
November 1, 2001 - 09:13 pm
Papa John. I like your test to determine the worth of a book. I agree if It’s not interesting its not worth wasting the time to read it. We hope to hear more from you as the discussion progresses.

I note in my message #91 I managed to enter a > instead of a < in setting up my link to Brief History of the French Indian War. Here it is in clickable form and the error has also been corrected in message #91.

I had an ancestor, Alexander Wells, who was active in the Baltimore Maryland area during the 1760's. There is no record that he fought during the French Indian War, but after it was over he took to buying the rights of colonial soldiers to receive bonus land under a royal decree. In this manner he acquired some 10,000 acres of land in what turned out to be Washington County PA. Curiously he received grants from the Governor of Virginia during the early 1770's. Later the area was awarded to Pennsylvania. Lord Dunmore, the last Royal Governor of Virginia, signed some of the early grants; Thomas Jefferson signed the later ones when he was Governor of Virginia during the Revolution. Alexander Wells moved to the land and developed it by building a Fort, a water powered mill on Cross Creek and a distillery. He participated as a soldiers in the revolution and as a distiller in Washington County in1797 probably rebelled again in the Whiskey Rebellion. For a biographical sketch click:Alexander Wells

Jonathan
November 1, 2001 - 10:51 pm
Rebellion...revolution...freedom...liberty...a war of independence...pursuit of happiness...Common Sense...no taxation...a Monument...all this is pretty heady stuff. I, a Queen's subject, set out to read a biography, and soon found myself admiring a very estimable man. But he also helped to break up an Empire, making him, understandably, a hero to his compatriots; but a traitor, nevertheless, to others. For me to think of him as a hero, methinks I put my head in danger, as he did with his...and got away with it. The revolution should never have happened. There, just in case my mail is being read. And also, God knows, Her Majesty, already burdened with cares, does not need a disloyal subject here in the wilds to the north of you.

What I'm trying to say, if the spelling seems exotic, and off centre, and my posts seem tardy in coming, it's because my lawyer is checking them for colonial correctness. Or if they don't refect a thorough grasp of American history, and I don't seem to share all your political and democratic enthusiasms...well, I'm being a hypocrite and a big liar. And worrying about my head! But I'm excited. Perhaps John Adams can give me the courage...these new winds are just blowing me away!

But just a minute. He risked being hanged, alright. 158/6. But was it true patriotism, or professional opportunism?...or the economic concerns of his wealthy clients?

Ouch!! Save the tar and feathers. It's a great book. A great story. All the world should hear it again.

bekka
November 2, 2001 - 12:00 am
Aaaaaaaaghh! I'd been wondering what a Royal Subject would think of the term "hero" in connection with a revolutionary. (lol)

But you're right of course. And my heros are those folks who face extreme risk for those values which I hold dear. Being a hero is not the same thing as being a saint.

becky

Ella Gibbons
November 2, 2001 - 01:09 am
Hahaha, JONATHAN! Many of our ancestors at one time were loyal subjects, but they had "Common Sense!" OUCH! Save your tar and feathers, I'm in hiding! And it seems an ancestor of HAROLD'S was a rebel and that he profited greatly from it - am I reading that correctly, Harold?

Our hero, John Adams, wrote at one time that happiness came not from fame and fortune, "and all such things," but from "an habitual contempt of them" - but do take notice that he was very ambitious, which McCullough tells us frequently, and also that he made a fortune in his lifetime.

Are we then to assume that he thought of himself as a contemptuous man?

Methinks BECKY is correct when she says " Being a hero is not the same thing as being a saint."

robert b. iadeluca
November 2, 2001 - 04:44 am
Isn't the term "hero" being used in Afghanistan? We call them terrorists. They call them "freedom fighters" or "heros."

The Taliban want freedom to worship God as they see fit. Ring a bell?

Robby

John Murphree
November 2, 2001 - 07:14 am
And Robby the Taliban believe those who crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon were heros and freedom fighters. Right?

--- Papa John

robert b. iadeluca
November 2, 2001 - 07:23 am
Papa John:--Yes, I think this is what they believed. Do not misunderstand my comments. In no way do I believe their philosophy or methods. But the English in the 18th Century did not believe in the philosophy or methods of John Adams either and would have hanged him if they could.

Robby

BaBi
November 2, 2001 - 09:41 am
Also, freedom to worship God as one sees fit hardly includes slaughtering 5000+ people as a way of saying, "We don't like you!"

Based on John Adams' own private letters to his wife, it seems pretty clear that his motivation was patriotism, and not opportunism. And for the benefit of our Canadian contributor, I see the rebellion arising when these English subjects felt their rights as Englishmen were being ignored and denied.

I am not one who believes in rebellion as an attitude in life or as a first choice in dealing with problems, whether personal or national. But when overtures are not received, grievances are not redressed, and people grow angrier...rebellion happens. I believe the rebellion would never have happened if the British government of that day had been less hard-nosed in their responses. ...Babi

robert b. iadeluca
November 2, 2001 - 09:48 am
Also, freedom to worship God as one sees fit hardly includes slaughtering 5000+ people as a way of saying, "We don't like you!"

It is not my example of the proper way to worship God, either, but there are others on this earth who think differently. We were very fortunate that there was an ocean between England and our "revolutionaries." Otherwise the result might have been different. In today's technological age, an ocean makes no difference at all.

Robby

MaryPage
November 2, 2001 - 10:20 am
BABI, is right. The Colonists thought of themselves as fully vested ENGLISHMEN, and were being treated as second class, or even third or fourth class, citizens who were there only to be taxed to death. The crown felt it had all rights to everything that could be exported, and full control over everything to be imported. Their attitude really stank (very unscholarly here!), and seemingly could not be set straight short of revolution.

Harold Arnold
November 2, 2001 - 10:36 am
Jonathan, I am happy that we have a participant to give the loyalist perspective. There are two sides to every issue and the1770’s events are no exception. In fact last summer I sent e-mail letters to several UK contacts hoping for UK participants.

The fact that there were two sides to the American independence question is clear in the book by the story of Jonathan Sewall who had been JA’s close friend in the 1760’s. From the beginning Sewall had remained loyal and very quickly departed North American shores. This was not an uncommon position as a significant component of the population remained loyal. This point was made clear to me a few years ago when I attended a professional meeting at St Andrew, New Brunswick. Across the road from my hotel were the Loyalist burial grounds. Walking through this cemetery I read the many one-sentence tombstone inscriptions proclaiming the perpetual loyalty of the dead who had been cruelly persecuted and forced to leave their homes by the rebellion. Also a book written in the early 19th century by an Episcopal minister describes a dinner he attended at my ancestor, Alexander Wells, Baltimore County home. A prime subject of dinner conversation was the hanging of local Tory dissidents.

Despite writings by Thomas Jefferson speaking favorable of the idea that a free people need a revolution every 20 years, the US government has never shown the least bit of sympathy for such an event. The echo of revolution gunfire still reverberated in 1786 when a disgruntled group of New England farmers began the Shay’s rebellion (mentioned in the book). Authorities immediately began suppression. A more serious event was the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. The rebellion was against a tax on corn the cash crop of western settlers who turned it into corn whiskey before it was sold. The rebels brought out all the old slogans and rhetoric of two decades earlier. Though the “no taxation with out representation” justification seemingly would not apply, apparently the rebels considered the tax its self in this case sufficient to warrant their action.

President Washington called out the Militia and personally led a column west to suppress it. Like I said in my yesterday’s post, there is no proof that my ancestor, Alexander Wells, was an active participant in the rebellion, but their can be no doubt as to where his sympathies as a Washington County distiller of corn whiskey lay. Also Alexander Wells sold his Washington County interest and moved to Wellsburg, Virginia (Now West Virginia) shortly after the event was settled. The rebellion was partially suppressed and the rebels partially placated by the settlement of corollary issues, but by the Federal reaction to this event and by the subsequent history, we are left with little doubt that the 1776 revolution is to be considered a one-time event that would not be tolerated in the future.

Ella Gibbons
November 2, 2001 - 10:58 am
Thanks, Harold, for that perspective on loyalists and your statement that "we are left with little doubt that the 1776 revolution is to be considered a one-time event that would not be tolerated in the future." Until approximatelly 100 years later, that is, when the nation engaged in a civil war.

All that is so well described in the book, but let's take a moment to reflect on the quality of the man, John Adams, that McCullough describes so vividly.



All this on two pages - (18/19). Need I ask how the author thought about his subject?

His father had never left the farm, had little education, valued land, but sold some of it to put John through Harvard, which he attended at the age of 15. His cousin, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, whose family was very wealthy from trade, both attended Harvard at the age of 13. A different time, indeed!

To me, it's an amazing factor that from the roots of this man came a leader in the Continental Congress, the revolution and a president.

Harold Arnold
November 2, 2001 - 02:38 pm
But Ella, in no sense was the 1861 rebellion tolerated. It was suppressed by military force. Incidentally the American Civil War is recognized by economic historians as the first modern war, that is one in which the entire physical and economic resources of the belligerent powers are dedicated to the war effort. In other words an all out effort. The American Civil was the first to meet these standards and it was WW I over half a century later before a European conflict met this “all out” requirement.

Regarding JA and Harvard, I would offer the following comment: It is hard for me to visualize that institution with only two building and a facility of 6 or 7 as it was described in our book in the mid-1750’s when JA was there. And how about JA’s Harvard breakfast of a draught of hard Cider? I doubt that many Harvard students would choose cider today, but perhaps other early morning adult beverages might not be too uncommon.

Regarding legal education and the practice of law, how simple the learning of the law was in 1750’s in comparison to today. It consisted of studying four published sources listed on page 43; one of these consisted of 4 volumes and another 2 volumes. That doesn’t sound like much in comparison to the hundreds of books and thousands of cases growing at the rate of thousands each year that comprise legal education today. And the cost of tuition, was it $100 that JA paid the attorney he studied under? Today law student’s tuition loans might well run into a six-figure number.

There was a required 18th century bar exam the JA took and passed in 1759, but from the description on page 44, it was more an oral interview than the comprehensive 3-day exam that are required today.

Ella Gibbons
November 2, 2001 - 02:57 pm
Hi Harold - are we two the only ones around? Well, we can have a good time talking about JA and the times he lived in, can't we?

One thing that perhaps MARYPAGE can tell us that I would like to know is JA's two brothers - what happened to them? I can't find any reference to them, can you?

Is "hard cider" alcoholic?

Harold Arnold
November 2, 2001 - 03:06 pm
Is "hard cider" alcoholic?


Yes, about the same as most wines, 10 - 12% I must break away now until this evening. The tractor repair person was here and fixed my tractor so I must go out and cut the grass.

MaryPage
November 2, 2001 - 05:43 pm
Hard cider is heaven. Especially when it has just turned. I don't like it when it gets really, really hard. But when real, unpasteurized cider is bottled and sat out on the back, unheated but enclosed porch, and it just begins to bubble a little bit, sigh! Take with very thin, very dark homemade ginger cookies.

I don't have a clue what happened to John Adam's brothers. I thought the book said Harvard had 4 buildings when Adams was there. I'll go back and check.

Yep, page 35: 4 buildings, plus a chapel.

Ella Gibbons
November 2, 2001 - 07:52 pm
What would drinking an alcoholic beverage first thing in the morning do to one - wake you up or put you to sleep?

"By all accounts, the food was wretched." And's that why they drank so much? Haha

But this idea of each student bringing their own knife and fork to the table for meals and then wiping them clean afterwards on the tablecloth sounds horrible! Wonder how often they washed the tablecloths? UGH!!!

Jonathan
November 2, 2001 - 09:02 pm
It's interesting how often McCullough finds occasion to mention Penn's Hill, until it takes on the appearance of a landmark in the book. Adams' birthplace stood at the foot of it. 'Year after year through the long courtship John trotted his horse up and over Penn's Hill...to Weymouth' p55. 'He would rather build stone walls upon Penn's Hill than hold the highest office in government, he told Abigail' p148. And the rest is history, as they say.

But I wanted to say something about monuments (re Maryal's post). And who, after reading the book, and already the posts, wouldn't want to see an Adams monument. Monuments are fine things, and while ruminating on the matter, I started wondering...whatever could have become of the gilded, larger-than-life, equestrian statue of King George III, which once, in pre-revolutionary days, graced the city of New York, before it was 'pulled from it's pedestal by an angry mob'? p24

What became of it? Does anyone know? The mind is boggled. Well, this Canadian mind is boggled, by the thought that it still exists somewhere, forgotten and neglected. That it could be found and brought here to Toronto, to find an honored place in the Queens Park, beside another king, Edward VII, also rejected and removed from His original site...in Delhi, or Simla, or Bombay, I'm not sure where exactly...by India fifty some years ago. Edward, HRM, also sits on a horse, larger-than-life, must be at least thirty feet high. Queens Park is our provincial 'Capitol', with its extensive park-like grounds. Come up and see our Imperial Glories sometime. Edward's mother is there too.

Further ruminations led me to imagine an appropiate monument for John Adams. Why not for Abigail as well? And what could be finer than an equestrian statue. On the same horse, naturally. It must have been a familiar sight...the quote above, suggests it. p218. Abigail herself mentions riding with John, where in the book I don't remember, in a letter to her sister Mary, from London, I think it was. And what better place than that granite outcropping at the top of Penn's Hill. They would have loved it, with John looking over his beloved acres, and Abigail once more seeing that glorious sight in '76, described, aptly enough, on page 76.

What think ye? Good. All that remains then, is to agree on who is holding the reins.

Harold Arnold
November 2, 2001 - 09:05 pm
I made another mistake in my message #105 when I gave 1797 as the year of the Whiskey Rebellion. It was 1794. As I said Washington personally led the military force of militia called up to suppress the event. It was during the 2nd Washington Administration. I noted that somehow I had posted 2 copies of message 105. I deleted one.

Stephen Ambrose in his 1996 book, "Undaunted Courage" gives a good short description of the Whiskey Rebellion. It was a part of that book because one of the militiamen participating was one private Meriwether Lewis on his first military expedition. There are many web sites for information on the Whiskey rebellion, Just do a google search on the string, "Whiskey Rebellion."

Ella Gibbons
November 2, 2001 - 09:31 pm
OLD STATUES NEVER DIE, THEY JUST FADE AWAY, JONATHAN. If the King is ever found, I hope he is sent straightaway to Canada - he might be residing in some musty cellar of a museum somewhere.

I've been to Toronto several times, once to Montreal and this December my daughter and I are venturing your way North to Quebec and we don't speak a word of French. It's been said here that those French folk know English but refuse to speak it, and don't like Americans, either - any of that true?

See you tomorrow, Harold! We forgive you all the errors and you forgive ours!

Elizabeth N
November 2, 2001 - 10:10 pm
John and Abigail on the summit of Penn Hill is a grand idea. ....elizabeth

uncle bill
November 3, 2001 - 05:01 am
Re Ella's Post #63 (I'm trying to catch up) -- "Btitish soldier" : what page and where ? My poor knowledge is that those of that era were hardly more than mercenaries -- "Hitler" : ditto. There , I know of no redeeming factor , simply use of power to accomplish the ends to his hatred.

Ella Gibbons
November 3, 2001 - 07:46 am
GOOD MORNING, Elizabeth, you think the Adams' statutes better suited to MA than Washington? I don't know, JA was the second president and it seems appropriate to put him (with Abigail, good idea) in Washington.

What did you think of MARYPAGE'S idea of - "but when real, unpasteurized cider is bottled and sat out on the back, unheated but enclosed porch, and it just begins to bubble a little bit, sigh! Take with very thin, very dark homemade ginger cookies." I thought of that this morning as I ate my cereal and grapefruit.

Let's all give UNCLE BILL A HEARTY WELCOME TO OUR GROUP! Those ideas of "heros" were just off the top of my head and not in the book, Bill. We were talking in generalities about who is and who isn't a hero. BUT WE HAVE NOW STARTED THE BOOK AND ARE NOW IN OUR THIRD DAY OF THE FIRST CHAPTER. You have plenty of time to catch up - no need to read any posts until you get to the November lst when we began.

PAPA JOHN - are you still with us?

You are a retired minister, true? So what does a minister think when he reads this (37): "He knew from experience…..the kind of contention that could surround a preacher, whatever he might or might not say from the pulpit. I saw such a spirit of dogmatism and bigotry in clergy and laity, that if I should be a priest I must take my side and pronounce as positively as any of them, or never get a parish, or getting it must soon leave it.""

Deems
November 3, 2001 - 08:47 am
Ella---That's MaryPage with the cider idea, not me. Hello, MaryPage, my friend. Any cider on your porch right now??????

I'm going to a pen show (don't anyone ask me about my affection for fountain pens, or I might answer) and when I get home I am going to dive into John Adams and see if I can come up with an interesting contribution.

MaryAL, not MaryPAGE, to whom we owe the cider recipe.

John Murphree
November 3, 2001 - 09:14 am
ELLA -- Yes I am still here reading every post. Yes, I remember JA's decision to go into law instead of the ministry. It seems to me he made a wise decision. However I expect that if he had chosen to become a preacher he would have made a good one.

Right now I am about mid point in the book. Sometimes I find it hard to put down.

--- Papa John

Harold Arnold
November 3, 2001 - 09:47 am
I get a kick out of French visitors at the Institute of Texan Cultures and the National Historic Park where I do volunteer work. Like one of the post remarked, they often speak only French, a language I cannot speak. When a casual greeting from me in English yields no response, often I can turn them on in English by bringing up the story of the ill-fated 1685 La Salle colony in Texas. La Salle who had been quite successful as a French explorer and colonizer in Canada, the Great Lakes, and even the upper Mississippi region failed miserable in Texas. The settlement was gone in two years with most of the 200 French settlers dead and the few survivors off on the long trek to Canada, living with Indians, or prisoners of the Spanish. When they realize I am talking about the French settlement, they tend to suddenly remember their English, which they often speak quite well.

Uncle Bill, I agree the typical British soldier in the revolution came from a different mold than the American counterpart. He was most often a paid professional sometimes from the German State of Hanover where George III of England was also sovereign. In contrast, the American soldier was likely to be a native volunteer defending his home against what he considered tyranny. Even so I don’t think I would equate the British or their troop to Hitler. Weather they came from Hanover or the British Islands; they joined the British army primarily because they needed a job and were attracted by the opportunity for travel and the experience. Some of the Hessian troops remained in America after the war and became Americans.

BaBi
November 3, 2001 - 10:01 am
Ella and Jonathan, I fear you will never find the king's statue. I may be mistaken, but I have always understood that it was melted down to make bullets.

Ella, was it you who remarked about the unexpectedness of a leader arising from someone of John Adams roots/background? I was struck by his own sense of the inadequacies of both himself and the other members of the First Cont. Congress. They were lawyers, businessmen, farmers, plantation owners. JA wrote "We have not men fit for the times. We are deficient in genius, education, in travel, fortune--in everything. I feel unutterable anxiety." And then later, the more hopeful statement: "It is to be a school of political prophets I suppose -- a nursery of American statesmen." Which is exactly what it turned out to be. ...Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 3, 2001 - 10:20 am
Forgive me my trespasses, MARYAL! Have changed it, Oh, Dear, how many times am I doomed to commit them!!

I liked what JA said so much there, BABI, that I put a little of that quote in the heading - so true today - let us hope our leaders are up to the task. I also liked the "nursery of American statemen" - he does those phrases so well!

Any ideas of what John Adams and other political leaders of that time would suggest we do if the present situation? We haven't declared war as yet, should we?

Their Declaration of Independence was their act of war don't you think?

PAPA JOHN - thanks for your comments, but is the clergy as dogmatic and bigoted today as in JA's times in your opinion. I find less bigotry today than I did as a young person - how do the rest of you feel about that?

MaryPage
November 3, 2001 - 10:48 am
I believe BABI to be correct. I too believe the statue was melted down for bullets, and that the Americans took a perverse joy in this.

John Murphree
November 3, 2001 - 12:49 pm
ELLA -- We do still have too much dogmatism and bigotry in some areas today. It is hard to compare religion today with religion in the 18th century. I am impressed with John Adams' high standards of morality and honesty.

-- Papa John

Ella Gibbons
November 3, 2001 - 01:11 pm
PAPA JOHN - hard to compare? Impossible to compare the two - we have jazz bands onstage in our churches today and people are clapping and singing raucously! But dogmatism and bigotry are the same no matter what century, don't you think? Some people, it seems to me, as they age become more dogamatic - NO ONE on Seniornet, of course.

OH, OH, THE KING WOULD NOT LIKE TO HAVE HIS STATUE AS BULLETS FOR THE ENEMY - BETTER TO HAVE HAD NONE AT ALL.

Deems
November 3, 2001 - 01:29 pm
Ella---No problema! My name seems to cause all kinds of trouble. I think I might change it to FRED. Do we have any Freds?

Just didn't want someone to think that I know anything about cider. Hehehehehehe.

ALF
November 3, 2001 - 02:03 pm
Maryal's AKA is Harry, the lil ole grog maker!

Have we mentioned John's propensity for "a heart formed for friendship" as described by J. Sewall. Like many of us, he needed friends and loved to sit and discuss lively stories. He was an observer and was fascinated as he watched everyone. Isn't it strange how he became our 2nd President instead of a preacher, a great orator, a farmer or an author?

Jonathan
November 3, 2001 - 02:10 pm
BaBi...I suspect you're right about the statue ending up as ammunition. But isn't there an outside chance, given the indignation of an angry mob, that King George ended up in the drink and now lays silted over in the bed of the East River, or the Hudson? I have to think of the large statue of Napoleon which now occupies such an honored place at Les Invalides, in Paris, after spending some time at the bottom of the Seine.

Ella...information about John Adams' brothers, Elihu and Peter, is hard to come by. Neither seems to have turned out very newsworthy. McCullough mentions them hardly at all. Elihu, five or six years younger than John, is described as a captain of militia who was stricken unto death by the 'bloody flux', in 1775, leaving behind his wife and three children.

Peter is mentioned a few times in passing, and that's all. In Peter's case it was the wife who died in the midst of life (c1780), while Peter is still alive in 1820, by then John's 'dear and deaf brother'. Peter had inherited the family homestead, purchased by John when Peter moved to his wife's house.

Page Smith supplies a little more information on Peter in his bio of JA. Smith describes Peter as 'a cheerful, easygoing young man not especially well equipped to make his way in a bad world'. However it helps to have a brother who has achieved considerable status in the community. John managed to secure the office of deputy sheriff for Peter after a 'campaign, carefully planned and painstakingly executed'. And then, as Smith recounts: 'John's estimate of his brother's rather limited capacities was indicated by his diary entry: "Now a new train of anxieties begins....Fears of imperfect services, imperfect and false returns, voluntary and negligent escapes, miscalculations, want of strength, courage, celerity, want of art and contrivance, etc.; rashness, indolence, timidity, etc." '.

How Peter regarded his older brother is told, humorously, in an anecdote in Smith's book, of an event which followed Adams' participation as elder statesman at the Massachusetts' constitution-revising convention in 1820. It had been very taxing, as well as 'the purest honor of my life', with the elder President even entertaining the thought that perhaps he would die dramatically on the floor of the convention. As it turned out he contracted a fever which put him to bed for almost two months, until:

'In the spring, when Adams was fully recovered, he went to town meeting with Thomas Greenleaf to defend and explain the changes recommended by the convention. There, in the midst of the deliberations, Adams' brother, Peter, with "two or three octogenarians, half deaf," began talking and laughing so loudly that the meeting was almost disrupted. Peter, impish as always, announced to one of his companions in a stage whisper: "There is our John and Tom Greenleaf, Moses and Aaron, delivering the law from Mount Sinai. John can't speak very well; so he makes Tom his spokesman. However I don't know that we can do any better than vote with them." '

Jonathan

Harold Arnold
November 3, 2001 - 02:39 pm
Papa John. Do you think JA would have made a good preacher by 18th century standards? I would be inclined to answer no, but when I ask myself why, I don't really have a good reason. I want to relate my no answer to his tendency to attach great importance to details, which would seem to assure a long and dull sermon. But this is by modern standards, not 18th century ones?

For an 18th century person, I think JA was quite open-minded and tolerant of diverse Religions as is evidence by his attendance of a Roman Catholic service when he was in Philadelphia. The evidence is that Jefferson despite his public writings advocating religious freedom was in fact less tolerant. In "Understanding Thomas Jefferson,” the E.M. Halliday book, that I have mentioned here before, Halliday tells us that Jefferson was quick to pull his eldest daughter out from a Paris Convent school when she indicated she wanted to convert to Catholicism. One version of the story is the girl was tired of the discipline of the nun run school and knew that her talk of conversion was a sure route for escape. What ever reason the girl my have had, TJ seems to have shown no tolerence at the prospect and quickly moved to block the possibility.

Ella Gibbons
November 3, 2001 - 03:07 pm
Only have a minute here ....more later.

Maryal is a nice name! Freddie is a nice name! - it's Ella that's not so nice, getting everyone mixed up! I'll do better - I pass this computer now and then and have to type something in and often too hurriedly.

I'd like to get connected with some of that "hard cider" - where does one get it? I might need a charge one of these days - for some reason, my computer is all charged up today, it hasn't gone to sleep once or disconnected or whatever you say - it's ready to roll whenever I am. They have moods, I swear - there are some weekends I can hardly get on!!! Traffic!

HI, ALF!!! Good to have you stop by..

Oh, that is such good information, JONATHAN - I'm going to read it slower later and comment. It would be hard to be JA's brother, just think of some of our own presidents' brothers. Roger Clinton, Billy Carter - what are some others?

And Hi Harold!

Gotta run..........

Deems
November 3, 2001 - 03:10 pm
I don't think John Adams was temperamentally suited for the ministry although he had enough endowments to have succeeded. It occurs to me that at the time Harvard's main business was turning out the next generation of clergy, so perhaps his father, "Deacon John," had such hopes.

There were clegy in the family though. Abigail was the second of the Reverend William Smith's three daughters. He married John and Abigail.

MaryPage
November 3, 2001 - 03:14 pm
Just go out right now, while it is possible, and buy a jug of unpasteurized cider. Make certain you ask the seller, most probably a road side place near an orchard, if anything has been put in it to keep it from turning. If it has not been tampered with, take it home and put it by your back door or on a cellar shelf. Check daily. When it begins to fizz, begin to tipple!

My grandmother used to do this, and we would have a bit of the fizzy every night after dinner and homework. I got a juice glass full, with 2 of Mrs. Adam's very thin, very dark ginger cookies. Mrs. Adam's did all of our baking.

It has been my understanding that John Adams believed in certain teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but did not believe in his literal divinity. In other words, he thought of himself as a "good Christian" because of the life he lead, but did not actually believe Jesus was The Christ.

Louise H
November 3, 2001 - 05:28 pm
May I comment here? I finished reading John Adams about a month ago. I am working on the Founding Brothers now, also very good, but not in the same league as JA.

Yes, I think Adams was a true hero. He loved this country, he wanted to see it united into one country which he knew would be difficult. Sometime you might like to read "Albion'Seed: Four British Folkways in America" which is the story of the four English settlements which formed the basis of the 13 original states - Virginia, New England, The Mid Atlantic States (Penn. New Jersey, Del.) and the mountanious sections of the Carolinas and Georgia. I think the coast line in those states part of Virginia.

When you read this, read about where these English settlers came from, and how different they all were - different values, different ways of life, etc. you can see how difficult it was to unite all these groups of people into one country. In fact, most English settlers in the 1700s, in referring to "my country" were referring to the colony they lived in.

Adams saw how difficult it would be to unite them. He recognized that there had never been a republic like that which he and some of the founding fathers had in mind, in the history of man. Rome was a republic, for a while, and Athens, in a limited way, - but this was to be a republic covering thousands of miles, and I think, around25 million people, altho I could be wrong about that figure.

He had a vision of uniting all these English settlements into one country, and he was willing to make compromises to accomplish this. For example, he knew there was a fine line between universal sufferage and rule by the majority , and mob rule. At the same time, to limit goverment to the aristocratic classes, the elegant and educated Virginia planters could lead to rule by oligarchy - the upper classes ruling the rest of the citizens. So he was a supporter of a two-house -bi=cameral- representative government: an upper house, which would be made up of, and represent the interested of the educated and propertied class, and a lower house which would defend the interests of the laborer, the small farmer and shopkeeper.

As one write said, I truly love John Adams, I have a deep respect for him and I think his actions and goals showed up the weaknesses of Jefferson - an elegant aristocratic man, who spoke well, but didn't necessarily live by what he said. Adams did.

Anyway, thats it. I can't recommend this book highly enough. McCullough came to Portland to lecture re: the book. He had been there before, and several people who had heard him in the past raved about what a wonderful speaker he was. I am a volunteer at that Library, and I wanted to hear him. But I wasn't able to go as I couldn't get transportation here -I live in a retirement community - and frankly, I wasn't smart enough to just call a cab and go that way. People who heard him said he was wonderful, and after the lecture he autographed the books of all the volunteers. I was devestated (sp?) that I had not been able to get my book signed. It would have been one of my treasures. Louise

Louise H
November 3, 2001 - 05:31 pm
Please excuse my typing mistakes and spelling - I just don't have time to go back and clean it up. I'm not usually so bad in typing. Louise

Harold Arnold
November 3, 2001 - 08:12 pm
Hey Louise H, you have competition for the worst speller and worst typist titles, Me! Seriously we appreciate your post and would sure like to see many more from you. I too have read much of the "Founding Brothers" title I agree with your comment that it is an interesting and well written book but not quite up to "John Adams." I did like the way Ellis choose to present his book as a series of vignettes, each readable by itself. In my case I did not read them in order but choose whichever one caught my interest at the time. The book came across real good making interesting casual reading.

Ella Gibbons
November 3, 2001 - 09:46 pm
ALF - you thought John Adams was an OBSERVER? When did he have the time - it says on the very first page of this book that he "loved to talk. He was a known talker. There were some, even among his admirers, who wished he talked less. He himself wished he talked less."

For that reason alone, I think he would have made a good preacher - haha - but even though his father wanted that profession for him, his mother, even though a pious woman, thought him unsuited for the life. MOTHERS KNOW BEST! Isn't it strange that for all the writing he did, he rarely spoke of his mother, but he wrote of the great respect he had for his father.

I just must ask this question of all of you - when JA starting teaching school, our author says he made the 60-mile journey on horseback in a single day. (37) NOW I ASK YOU - can a horse ride 60 miles in a single day, and, of course, we don't know if it was every day or if it was a trip of 30 miles, 30 miles back - but it sounds EXHAUSTING. What a sore behind you would have, could he sit down at a desk after that? I don't know anything about horses or mphorse for that matter - do any of you?


JONATHAN, how very thoughtful of you to look up that information about JA's brothers - Peter and Elihu. Thank you so much, but wouldn't it have been easier if they were named Peter, James and John? I mean Elihu? How do you pronounce that? Long e, long I, but what do you do with the hu - hoo, Eliwho? See what I mean? Who, Elihu? Hahahaha

No wonder JA had anxieties about his brother, Peter, after he got him that job (they did that back then, too, AHA!), with a brother like that I doubt I would have bothered. And then to have him snickering there in a corner at JA when they both were old - SHAME! Love that little anecdote, though, about JA dramatically dying on the floor of the convention! Wouldn't our hero have loved to go out that way, - as it was - and as you will know - those who have read all the book - he crossed the river in a way that will never be forgotten anyway!

I'm going to be TIPPLING WITH THE FIZZY every night as soon as I can find the unpasteurized cider, MARYPAGE. John Adams drank that every morning of his life and look where that fizzy took him - to such great heights in life and a long one, too! I'm going to try it - thanks for the method. We have an orchard not far from here if they haven't closed it down this year. Was Mrs. Adams a relative of……..?




WELCOME LOUISE, OF COURSE, STAY AND COMMENT! I intend to get that book and read all about the 13 original colonies - I love history - and am aware of how difficult it was for those courageous people to even think about uniting such a variety of folk from different regions, different climates, ways of life, etc. But you are ahead of us - we will get to Chapter Two , which begins with Adams' quote "We were about one third Tories, and one third timid, and one third true blue" - next week we hope, stay with us until then! Oh, too bad, you didn't get your book autographed when McCullough was there - where on the coast of Maine do you live? My sister lived there for many years at Falmouth and I visited her often. Loved it there, except the winters! We were coming home to Ohio one winter and I begged my husband to get off the road - it was nothing but ice, but we slipped and slid all the way south. Scared my soul silly!

I've listened to Joseph Elllis' PASSIONATE SAGE as I was exercising and have a few notes from that to include sometime - the book described JA in the years after the presidency - a good book.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS - IT'S WONDERFUL COMING IN HERE TO READ THEM ALL - YOU'RE ALL SUCH GOOD COMPANY! See you tomorrow

ALF
November 4, 2001 - 06:10 am
Ella:  Throughout this first section we learn that JA had a "keen" eye and was  a close observer of human folly as he wandered along.  He was impressed with the virtuous, brave G. Washington.  It appears he loved his mother but rememeber the haranging that she gave her husband when he brought a destitute young woman home to be clothed by the Mrs.  He knew the sudden, uncontrollable rush of his own anger.  He must observe more closely the effects of reason and rage...."
(pg. 38)  Adams did like the children and hugely enjoyed observing them."
"All that part of creation that lies within our observation is liable to change," he said.
He sat and observed   the greatest men in America.
It is true,  he talked a great deal but his mind was alert and perceptive as he witnessed human nature.  What better lessons are there in life than what the casual observer learns?

Harold Arnold
November 4, 2001 - 08:56 am
Ella, JA’s 60 miles of travel per day on horseback while unusual, was certainly possible and no all time record. The only historical incident that I can document at the moment that exceeded this distance was in the summer of 1806 when Captain Lewis and the small contingent that was with him at the time covered some 80 miles between maybe 7:00 AM and dark. This party of four (Captain Lewis, the field brothers, Ruben and Joseph, and the hunter/scout, Drouillard) had just had a fire fight with a Blackfoot war party and had good reason to hurry as they feared large Blackfoot reinforcements were in the area. Ambrose says the party of four with several packhorses:

retreated at a trot covering about eight miles per hour…..They rode through the morning and mid-day, not stopping until 3PM, when they, “suffered our horses to graze…[and] took some refreshments”. They had covered 63 miles. After an hour and a half break, they mounted up and rode off, to cover another seventeen miles by dark.


This adds up to about 80 miles over about 11 hours of riding time. Of course the party had very good reason to be in a hurry.

Harold Arnold
November 4, 2001 - 09:37 am
Before we leave Chapter 1, I would like to make a few comments concerning the livability of the Adams New England home.

Though the rooms were probably quite large the house in reality seems quite small. I can understand the need for the massive brick fireplace and chimney but why were not some sort of provisions for the heating of the upstairs bedrooms included? As McCullough points out, water would freeze in these rooms during the New England winter. Also in the summer the upper rooms would be quite warm.

McCullough says the inter walls were brick, but the outer walls were mere clapboard with the inside lathed and plastered. If clapboard is what I am thinking of, it is next to nothing and wind would blow through the joints. It would seem that the outside walls would have been brick also?

As McCullough points out the family had to keep their overcoats on during the winter even with the fire going. We have an early 19th century sharecropper’s cabin at the Museum where I work. There the rural occupants papered the interior side of the walls with newspaper. While this was all they could afford it was a means of keeping most of the winter wind out of the house. I guess the inside coating of plaster on the Adams walls would be quite effective in blocking out the wind though it would not have much value as insulation blocking heat transfer.

What is your opinion of the livability of this house as a modern family home? Would the two bedrooms provide the privacy a modern family would expect?

To day is my weekend work day at the ITC so I will be not return here until this evening

tigerliley
November 4, 2001 - 10:08 am
Harold....as a small child our home was not to different than JA home....I can remember well heating bricks, wrapping them in newspaper, and placing them in the feather bed.....After the proper amount of time had passed run fast and jump under the covers....One could see their breath in the winter time if you poked your head out of the covers.....No electicity, no running water, no indoor plumbing...I expect I am not the only Senior Netter who remembers thses times.....Heat in the kitchen was a coal burning range and there was a pot bellied stove in the living room which was the other source of heat....this was a five room house.......

Jonathan
November 4, 2001 - 10:12 am
'In 1682 La Salle reached the mouth of the Mississippi and took possession of the whole valley in the name of the King of France.'

Doesn't that have a fine ring to it. It's interesting, Harold, to hear of the response you get when you mention that name to a French-speaking group. The memory is kept alive in Canadian schools, of La Salle's explorations, his tragic death, and the sorry end of his attempt to establish a colony in what would become Texas. While reading about the stirring events in the book, perhaps it would be well to remember how much of North America was once a French domain. And wasn't the French threat a big factor in delaying American independence. Once the English colonys were free of the threat, they no longer had any need of the British soldiers. British guardianship turned into British parliamentary tyranny, providing the goad and the incentive to forge a new, independent, united nation out of a diversity of colonys. With birth-pangs accompanied by lusty cries of Liberty and Freedom...giving men like John Adams a crack at political midwifery as an alternative to a life-time in a religious ministry.

But it's the ancient land claims, in one form or another, which stick in the memory. Beginning with those of the First Americans. And isn't the world wracked by the problem. The Balkans. The Palestine/Israel conflict. And the multi-tribal Black Hole in mid-Asia, hi-jacked by bin Laden to serve as a launching pad for God knows what kind of an Imperium.

From the horrendous to the ridiculous. I would like to pass along for your enjoyment a story having to do with acquiring title to land, taken from the book, Miscellany-at-Law. After persistent enquiries...'Driven beyond the normal patience of conveyancers, the vendor's lawyer is reputed ultimately to have answered thus: "Please be advised that in the year 1803 the United States of America acquired the territory of Louisiana from the Republic of France by purchase; the Republic of France had in turn acquired title from the Spanish Crown by conquest, the Spanish Crown having originally acquired title by virtue of the discoveries of one Christopher Columbus, a Genoese sailor, who had been duly authorized to embark upon his voyage of discovery by Isabella, Qeen of Spain; Isabella, before granting such authorization, had obtained the sanction of His Holiness the Pope; the Pope is the Vicar on earth of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ is the son and heir apparent of God; God made Louisiana." '.

Ella...I'm sure you'll have a fine time in Quebec. A few phrases to make it seem like you're trying is all they will ask of you. Fractured French is so painful to hear, that - in a pinch - even sign language will serve well enough. But you musn't forget the nuances!

Jonathan

MaryPage
November 4, 2001 - 11:02 am
Thankyou, Jonathan! At LAST a lawyer I can relate to and even like!

BaBi
November 4, 2001 - 02:11 pm
Ella, your comment about JA's love of talking - sometimes too much - brought back a memory that made me laugh. Remember the musical years ago, "1776"? There was a hilarious song, sung by the conventioners during a session in which JA was holding forth at considerable length. The main chorus of the song was "SIT DOWN, JOHN!".

Louise, I knew very little about John Adams before starting this biography, and I share your deep respect for the man. How heartily I wish we could see more today of the kind of integrity he displayed. On page 24, McCullough writes, "He was not a man to back down or give up, nor one to do anything other than what he saw to be his duty. What in another time and society might be taken as platitudes about public service were to both John and Abigail a lifelong creed."

May Paige, according to JA's writings, he was a Congregationalist. They certainly regard Jesus as the Christ. Do you have some evidence that JA was in disagreement with his church?

...Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 4, 2001 - 04:26 pm
THANKS, ALF, for your keen "observations" - hahaha All the observers that I have known have seemed to be the silent type, they sit back and listen quietly - they are loners in some sense, but when they talk they usually have something to say worthwhile. But you have made the point that he did take long walks, VERY LONG HORSEBACK RIDES, and with his unusual intelligence and keen observations of human nature this, no doubt, was when he got his intuitive concepts and formed judgments, plus, of course, being an avid reader - did you note that TYPE of books he read? Heavy, heavy!

Speaking of reading, all this was done by candlelight? - all the letters between the two of them (Portia and her dearest friend) were probably written by candlelight and, pray tell, when in their busy lives did they have the time for this plus all the reading they did. BY CANDLELIGHT AND QUILL PEN - laborious work, wouldn't you think?

And Abigail - the heavy burden she carried - well - picture this:
She……rose at five in the morning…all her life she would do her own sewing, baking, feed her own ducks and chickens, churn her own butter and, of course, children, epidemics, farm work, bills, she did it all, and still wrote and was an avid reader? Come on - this is SUPER WOMAN!


TIGERLILEY answered your questions very well, HAROLD! Many Seniornetters remember the "advantages of adversity" as one author put it in a book I'm reading. LOVED THAT!

Thank you, JONATHAN, for reminding us of the French influence in America's early history and your remarks about ancient land claims are right on target today! Will the Middle East problem ever be settled? Not in our lifetime, I don't think.

"political midwifery as an alternative to a life-time in a religious ministry."


You turn a very nice phrase, indeed, and tracing LOUISIANA back to the origin of the Pope and God! HAHAHAA - a precious story. Thank you - just bring those stories to the table anytime - better than dessert!

Thanks, Babi - good to see you here again. I saw the movie of "1776" but it was so long ago I can't remember the songs. MARYPAIGE should be along very soon to answer your question about the Congregationalists - I hope so, as I know nothing about the subject!

bekka
November 4, 2001 - 10:03 pm
If Mr. Adams had believed in and been drawn to the gospels the way he believed in the Independance of the American States he would have made a fine preacher. Only the pastoring of a flock of sick and wayward souls might have been a bit personal for his tastes.

becky

tigerliley
November 5, 2001 - 05:02 am
I found it ironic that the British put small pox vaccine in the blankets of the American Indians . Now we are worried about small pox being introduced back into civilization again by terroists.... I needn't mention anthrax..... I am loving the physical discription of Jefferson...somehow I had imagined him as quite tall and dark.....not "copper haired and freckeld".

BaBi
November 5, 2001 - 10:53 am
I agree, Ella, about the books JA was reading. Don't they make our school days look simple by comparison? Apparently, that was standard reading for the educated of that time. Learning Latin and Greek was considered absolutely essential to calling oneself educated, so of course Latin and Greek books were read as a matter of course.

Did you notice the put-down of lawyers? That seems to have been the popular viewpoint of lawyers from the first appearance of the species. I have come across slaps at the legal profession back to ancient times. And yet, God help the poor soul that finds himself entangled in the law without a good lawyer. But how many see their profession as JA did, as an opportunity to: <color=green>assist the feeble and friendless, to discountenance the haughty and lawless, to procure redress to wrongs, the advancement of right, to assert and maintain liberty and virtue, to discourage and abolish tyranny and vice?"</color=green>

Babi

Ann Alden
November 5, 2001 - 11:29 am
Here's a quote that my grandson put at the end of his emails after the WTC debacle. Does anyone remember the TV programs about the Revolutionary patriots led by Sam Adams? I liked it back when it first came on but don't remember much about it otherwise.

1776 quote:

Samuel Adams was a cousin to John Adams(2nd president of US)

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom -- go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you." -Samuel Adams

Harold Arnold
November 5, 2001 - 11:32 am
Tigerlilley, thanks for your comment in your messages #140 relative to similarities between the JA house and your childhood home. Your message brings to mind a similar parallel in my early life In 1930’s San Antonio. We had Gas space heaters that were used to heat during the cold spells that periodically interrupted our mild South Texas weather. There were also a wood burning fireplace in the living room and a wood Franklin stove in a family room. One cold frosty morning while dressing for school. I remember backing too close to the stove. A substantial blister made sitting a bit uncomfortable during the remainder of the day.

Also somewhere I remember other later reports of selling the blankets used by smallpox victims to Indians.

Jonathan, The journal by Henri Joutel concerning La Salle’s experience in Texas is available from the B & N on-line catalog at the following link. Journal of Henri Joutel

Joutel was perhaps La Salle’s most trusted lieutenant. In the Journal, he describes the voyage from France and the building and life at the Matagorda settlement named Fort St Louis. Joutel was with the La Salle party that left Fort St Louis to find the Mississippi and Canada. He was present when La Salle was assonated and took over leadership after the assassins eliminated themselves.

In my experience I note that not only French Canadians, but also French visitors from Europe too know of and recognize La Salle as the great explorer that he was. In this respect I think the French are more aware if their history than British Visitors who seem less likely to recognize well know English historical figures.

BaBi, Mary Page, etc, do you suppose JA, though nominally a Congregationalist had a streak of the Unitarian in him? I don’t think it unusual for early 19th century intellectuals to show such leanings. Also how about TJ, was he too a bit of the Unitarian? JA was certainly very tolerant speaking favorably of the Catholic service he attended in Philadelphia and an Xmas service at Westminster in London.

Deems
November 5, 2001 - 03:02 pm
In New England, especially, the Congregational Church (now the United Church of Christ) is very like the Unitarian and Universalist Churches. There is little official doctrine in the Cong. Church although the divinity of Christ is believed in.

My father was a Congregational minister. (He started out as a Southern Baptist, but that is another story). He frequently preached at Unitarian churches as well. Of the standard Protestant denominations, those who hold that Christ was divine, the Congregational Church is the most liberal.

Maryal

Ella Gibbons
November 5, 2001 - 04:04 pm
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT SMALLPOX?


TIGERLILEY - where are you and Harold reading this -"I found it ironic that the British put small pox vaccine in the blankets of the American Indians." In this book? Where?

That is a timely, but frightening thought, isn't it, considering what we are all concerned with today. OH!

Thanks, BABI, for mentioning the lawyer quote - had forgotten that, but, do certainly agree with your thought - we use them when we need them. And if you would put the word - font - in front of the word "color" in those brackets you have there, PRESTO! You would have color print! Try it!

Golly, who remembers any Latin today? I must have got through the A's because I can remember Amat, Aqua, Agri - I doubt that would be of any use in reading those books! Hahaha

HELLO ANN! That's a chilling quote you brought here. Let me repeat it ""Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? We can certainly relate that to the recent disaster of 9/11. Troubling times - we live in a dangerous period in America, I fear. It's not like the old wars - we can't see our enemy, we don't know where they are, and they are intelligent. This could go on for years, and I'm reminded of what John Adams asked - do we have men "fit" for the times.

There are many remarks in this book that we can relate to our situation today in this country. Let's quote when they come up and maybe they can be enlightening.

Were you surprised that John Adams, at the height of the furor over the Stamp Act, was writing and publishing an essay that was not a call to arms or mob action, but a statement of patriotism and a conviction that American freedoms were rights long established by British law. I see a few expressions that probably were being bandied about and read from such sources as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau and Voltaire; the same people who were to influence Thomas Jefferson.

And "taxation without representation" - a phrase that had been used in Ireland for more than a generation. Not all these ideas were original.

Do you remember Abigail owned 2 slaves and somewhere she was bemoaning the "sins of slavery" - I'm not sure where in this chapter. But the slaves of that day were not all in the south Somewhere I read the number of slaves owned by the Northern states before the Civil War but can't remember where. Anybody know how many?

Boston was not the holy city the Puritans had envisioned; however in 1780 Massachusetts would become the first state to abolish slavery. THEY SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT FACT!

see ya later - ella

Ella Gibbons
November 5, 2001 - 04:11 pm
Thanks, MARYAL - for straightening us out on the Congregational Church. That should be the definitive word on it - a minister's daughter is not to be questioned! Hahaha (and I got your name right!)

Deems
November 5, 2001 - 05:48 pm
Ella---Indeed you did (get the name right!) but you must learn to be more skeptical. Preacher's kids are notorious for getting into trouble. I'm not at all sure you should trust what I say.....although in this case I have done my best. Hehehehehe.

Ella Gibbons
November 5, 2001 - 10:24 pm
Please note the questions in the heading and respond to any that you would like to discuss.

Tomorrow - 11/6 - we are going to begin Chapter II - "TRUE BLUE" - why did McCullough name it this?

There is so much of historical importance here - I'm looking forward to all your comments.

We are in Philadelphia - isn't it called the "City of Angels?" Or am I getting it confused with another one?

ella

Ella Gibbons
November 5, 2001 - 11:18 pm
You must take that virtual tour (in the heading)of historic Philadelphia! Fascinating pictures and facts.

Louise H
November 6, 2001 - 09:23 am
Just a brief note as I am hurrying today. I think -just my opinion- that many of the leaders of the time were deeply religious men in that they believe in God and trusted Him, in His plans and His justice.But as to specifics in doctrine, they were apt to be skeptical. I don't know if they ruled out the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, but they were men of the Age of Reason, and they tended to look for a reasonable explanation for the things they believed in, and if they could not find that reasonable explanation, they just kept an open mind.

JA I think believed in a government of laws, not a government of men - he had seen enough of that with the English government, and he did not want an upper class of landed nobility deciding onthe laws for this country. but he felt as British citizens at that time, we were as entitled to justice under the law as the English citizens in England. He admired much about the British structure of govt. but when we not able to enjoy the benefits of that structure, then it was time for us to "get out". Louise

Harold Arnold
November 6, 2001 - 09:29 am
Ella asks a good question, why was the 2nd chapter named, "True Blue." Also regarding Philadelphia as the "City of Angles,” that’s a new one on me. If McCullough said that, I missed it through both of my readings.

McCullough gave us a wonderful virtual tour through the city as it existed in the 1770's. Would you feel safe and comfortable living in the city he described. Those of you who are ahead in your reading are aware of the frequent epidemic outbreaks of yellow fever that killed thousands just about every late summer making our current dozen or so anthrax cases seem minor in comparison.

I have had an interesting morning here at my Guadalupe County place. I am having siding installed on my house and this morning the spirit moved my contractor to begin work. The crew came in a huge Van pulling a huge 50 foot long trailer. We had trouble fitting it through my gate. After we had it in they were parking the trailer and the crew of four or five were getting ready to start when suddenly flashing red lights and armed men appeared coming down the drive from the road. I was the last to realize what was going on. I got the idea when I realized the crew all had their hands up shouting "the owners here, the owner, he’s right here" pointing to me. It seems the Neighbor across the street had called 911 with a report that a burglary was in progress and men were running in and out of the house. I had no idea our local Sheriff Dept law enforcement was so efficient. Fortunately no shots were fired and I was able to convince the half dozen officers all was ok.

They said a daytime burglary crew was operating in the neighborhood, giving me new reason to doubt the wisdom of my move to respectability by the new finish on the house. Previously its dilapidated outside appearance rendered my place burglary proof.

Wilan
November 6, 2001 - 10:20 am
I am stunned! I was under the impression all of my life tha John Adams was a trouble maker, a heavy drinker and a 'user ' of his wife and family. Perhaps I have him confused with Sam Adams-I intend to investigate Sam on the Web as soon as I finish this. Am I the only one who did not realize what a good man JA was? I truly grew up thinking that JA, albeit a great revolutionary, was not a very good man. I am stunned to find out how wrong I was! I have always been a sort of history buff, I was born and schooled in Boston, the scene of much of the beginnings of the Revolution and now live only l5 or so miles from Braintree. How could such a great man be so misunderstood and maligned? The author does not touch on this-all I see is a great affection for the man and his family! You can bet that I will be doing a good deal of research oin the Web! I had to smile at the favored careers-the law still wins out as the preferred career with the ministry coming in second. Today, the law still predomintes, but technology is giving it a good run for first place. I am afraid that the ministry is losing! I found JA's beliefs to be a combination of law, mans right to govern himself and a strong faith in God. I could not get the book from the library in time for this discussion so I got a book-on-CD. I have listened to all of the book and am going over it again. It is really absorbing and has awakened my mind! By the way-I think Philadelphia was known as 'The City of Brotherly Love' and Los Angeles is known as 'The City of Angels'! Wilan

MaryPage
November 6, 2001 - 10:51 am
Wilan, I firmly believe politics is the reason people have not known the true John Adams. And yes, it does sound as though you might be thinking of Old Sam. However, there was an awful lot of spin against Adams. Not having anything against him, a lot was made up. Thus it has ever been in politics! Even the author or authors of the Shakespeare histories distorted the truth and inserted falsities in order to put the then current regime in a good light as having a legitimate claim to power! People tend to believe the stories of the cleverest writers, and not of the historians of the highest integrity. Adams saw himself as an individual, not a movement leader. He hoped for appreciation and approval of his efforts on behalf of this nation, but never pictured himself as the icon for an enduring school of political belief. Thus, he failed to build up a base, an organization which could be continually fed by members of future generations, from which to continue to promote his philosophies. This is the way I see it.

Ella Gibbons
November 6, 2001 - 11:37 am
We do appreciate all your comments, thanks so much, YOU MAKE IT INTERESTING!! It wouldn't be possible without YOU, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU!

LOUISE stated that "JA I think believed in a government of laws, not a government of men."

Can you be more specific than that? Did he differ from Jefferson in his beliefs?

Funny story, HAROLD! Policemen are a little like lawyers - we want them when we are in trouble, but don't want to see them otherwise! I had a similar thing happen to me when I was alone one evening. My neighbor called and told me not to get upset, but policemen were all over our backyard with flashlights! Not get upset? I opened the patio door and a cop yelled to me - STAY INDOORS! What would you think?

WILAN - isn't it strange what we remember from our early days of history. You thought JA a scoundrel, I hardly thought of him at all. When I thought of the birth of our nation, it was Washington and Jefferson that came to mind. A couple of year ago we discussed the book by Joseph Ellis titled AMERICAN SPINX (a biography of Thomas Jefferson) - you can find it by clicking here: Ginny "Biography: American Sphinx" 12/29/97 10:28am - if you are interested.

As MARYPAGE said "People tend to believe the stories of the cleverest writers, and not of the historians of the highest integrity." History is always changing and it's good we have researchers who revisit it from time to time to give us a different opinion.

Thanks for informing me of my error - Philadelphia is the City of Brotherly Love - gosh, was I wrong! Now tell us how that came to be? Quakers? No, what?

What is your answer to the first question in the HEADING? WHAT MOTIVATES POLITICAL LEADERS?

I'm not sure if it was in this book as I've read or skimmed a couple of others on JA, but he believed that politicians were motivated by a need to be loved by the citizens of the country. What are your thoughts?

Elizabeth N
November 6, 2001 - 11:54 am
Ella, I was taking the Historic Philly tour and found out that the house where Jefferson wrote the Declaration was "once owned by Hyman and Simon Gratz. Their sister, Rebecca, was the inspiration for Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" and Thackeray's "Rebecca." I would like to know all of that story. ...elizabeth

Jonathan
November 6, 2001 - 02:01 pm
They were always a rebellious lot...the castle at Shrewsbury was besieged in 1138, by King Stephen, who hanged the entire garrison.

What good neighbors you have, Harold. Thanks for the link to the Journal of Henri Joutel and the additional information on La Salle.

Ella - I'm happy you liked my take on the options available to John Adams setting out on his quest for a useful, self-fulfilling life. It has been interesting to see so many posts, with good ideas, about JA's choosing the Church rather than the law. Let's not forget that he would also dearly liked to been a soldier. I think he would have made a good one. Wasn't his most enjoyable committee work that which had to do with military and war matters? I have no doubt that there is a politician indide many a minister, priest or rabbi, eager to get out. There was a time when archbishops and cardinals were routinely consulted in matters of state. McCullough quotes someone, I believe, as saying that John Adams, with the proper vestments, would have looked the perfect Archbishop of Canterbury.

I believe it was Maryal who said that Adams was not tempermentally suited. And I agree, especially for that day-to-day pastoral work. But he was a devout Christian, we are told. Church and God were very important to him, accepted as the 'given' in life. That's indicated, already, by the simple statement that he was reluctant 'to travel on the Sabbath'. 'God Almighty grant us wisdom and virtue sufficient for the high trust that is devolved upon us', said on approching the City of Whatever, for a Congress, 25.

And he must have been deadly serious about it; because it's the same Adams who said: 'What has preserved this race of Adamses in all their ramifications in such numbers, health, peace, comfort, and mediocrity? I believe it is religion, without which they would have been rakes, fops, sots, gamblers, starved with hunger, or frozen with cold, scalped by Indians, etc., etc., been melted away and disappeared...' p30.

So, if religious belief and practice did that much for the Adamses, why not the whole country? He could be eloquent. He was a good orator, a convincing speaker. Wasn't he very effective in persuading Continental Congresses to adopt his measures? And therein lays the secret, I think. Pray to God for wisdom, and then get to work, writing constitutions and building a nation, with reason, historical prececent and the philosophical and political thinking which came with the Enlightenment of the 18th century.

His feet always remained firmly on the ground, in both earthly and not so earthly matters. 'It is the will of Heaven, that we should be thrown into existence at a period when the greatest philosophers and law-givers of antiquity would have wished to live', p130. How is that for a calling? There is a splendid sentence or two of his, following that.

Now that's also doing the work of God!...Maryal, you're the teacher (I'm also a preacher's kid)...Could that be considered a paraphrase, with a difference, of Milton's: 'They also serve, who only stand and wait'?

How interesting to read that Benjamin Franklin came to Canada to persuade us to join as 'the 14th colony'. Why in heaven's name did he go to Montreal? Why didn't he come to Toronto? Haha, that's only meant to be humorous. I'm a loyal subject of the Queen.

Jonathan

Deems
November 6, 2001 - 02:39 pm
Jonathan---I definitely agree with you. Doing the work of God is often doing the kind of work one does best. My daughter is a painter--as in oils and acrylics. Several years ago she had Omni solo domini--and someone needs to correct my Latin here--over the door in her studio. It translates to All for the glory of God. She borrowed the phrase from someone (Michaelangelo?);I always liked it. What flavor of minister was your father?

Way up there ^ message #156 by Louise H has some words I'd like to repeat here because I can't do any better describing my understanding of religion and the religious person at the time of the Revolution. Louise said, "I think -just my opinion- that many of the leaders of the time were deeply religious men in that they believed in God and trusted Him, in His plans and His justice. But as to specifics in doctrine, they were apt to be skeptical. I don't know if they ruled out the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, but they were men of the Age of Reason, and they tended to look for a reasonable explanation for the things they believed in, and if they could not find that reasonable explanation, they just kept an open mind."

That's what I have always thought from the reading I've done. God was assumed, but being "a devout Christian" did not mean Then what it most likely means Now.

Harold Arnold
November 6, 2001 - 02:43 pm
Jonathan wrote:
How interesting to read that Benjamin Franklin came to Canada to persuade us to join as 'the 14th colony'. Why in heaven's name did he go to Montreal? Why didn't he come to Toronto? Haha, that's only meant to be humorous. I'm a loyal subject of the Queen.


Do you think Toronto would have offered a better prospect rception for the Franklin message? It might seem the the French area of Montreal (less than 20 years after the English conquest)would offer the best chance of success. Was Toranto already the capital of British Canada?

uncle bill
November 6, 2001 - 03:31 pm
Johnathan : re post 162. I haven't even gotten to p.130, but when I flipped to it, the "will" concerned the formation of an unprecedented nation. What have I missed? I do agree that he realized it was a once-in-forever occasion.

BaBi
November 6, 2001 - 03:46 pm
Whoo, I'm way behind. Couldn't get in yesterday because of a jinxed phone line, and got blocked out of SenNet earlier today. My thanks, Tigerlily, for the tip on getting color in the post.

Speaking of JA's integrity and strong sense of the right of all to freedom and justice, I was greatly impressed by the fact that he agreed to represent the soldiers at the so-called "Boston Massacre". And Sam Adams had a hand in that incident, as I recall. Sam did have a reputation as a rabble-rouser.

On the question of why men want to go into politics...I'm not sure the reasons are entirely the same today as then. It seems that there was more of a belief in public service then, and an attitude that saw political service as statesmanship. It has seemed to me, IMHO, that we have a Catch-22 situation as regards politicians. It appears to me that those who go into politics today primarily do so out of a desire for power; and someone who wants personal power is a danger we DO NOT want in public office.

JA wrote, "Ambition is one of the most uncontrollable passions of the human heart. The love of power is insatiable and uncontrollable..." And I found a quote from Thomas Paine: "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." ...Babi

TigerTom
November 6, 2001 - 08:26 pm
While I haven't got that far in the book, I get the idea
that the Author left off many of the "Warts." John Adams was
a Great Man, and deserves all of the honor and adulation he
is getting in this discussion group. However: when he was
President he was the father of the "Aliens and Seditions act."
Under it had several newspapers closed and the editors of those
Newspapers jailed. He was known in some quarters as the
"Little Tyrant." John Adams did have another side to him.
He was all that McCullough wrote of him. But, I believe that
the Author grew too fond of his subject and overlooked some
things that might have given a little balance to the Biography.



Tiger Tom

ALF
November 7, 2001 - 05:53 am
McCullough does an admirable job of portraying JA's finer characteristics, but other historians have had difficulty assessing him. As TigerTom mentioned he was fiercely criticized for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he never advocated their passage nor personaly implemented them. His stubborn independence left him politically isolated..

Harold Arnold
November 7, 2001 - 09:08 am
Welcome Tiger Tom. Independent views are welcom here. We hope you will become a regular participant.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call JA, "the father" of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he did sign them into law and he did use the Sedition Act to close newspapers and prosecute editors despite their obvious anti First Amendment nature. To day they would be quickly struck down on the initial court review.

Remember also this was before the Madison v. Marbury decision in 1801 in which the Supreme Court first exercised and declared its power to negate an act of congress made law by the Presidents signature. Prior to that time the power of the court to void what congress and the President had done was in doubt. Such power was not explicite in the Constitution but had to be implied from the document. That the Court actually asserted this power came as a surprise to many.

I too note the obvious high regard of McCullough for his subjects, both John and Abigail Adams to an extent that makes the question of his objectivity a legitimate one. What do you think, did the author's admiration for JA and AA effect his written assessment of these subjects?

Madison v Marbury

Ella Gibbons
November 7, 2001 - 09:50 am
Hey, Elizabeth, have you searched the Internet for that story? I bet you could dig it up there, try this search engine - http://www.Ilor.com/ - it's a good one. Glad you liked the Philly tour.

Jonathan said "I have no doubt that there is a politician inside many a minister, priest or rabbi, eager to get out." Oh, I do agree - can you think of any politicians though that have been ministers? Patience and a sense of humor helps when you are dealing with people; I'm not sure JA had the former but he had the latter at times - I just read this and laughed as it is so true today just watch C-Span sometime and you'll discover how dry politics can be.
"The consequence of this is that business is drawn and spun out to immeasurable length. I believe if it was moved and seconded that we should come to a resolution that three and two make five, we should be entertained with logic and rhetoric, law, history, politics, and mathematics concerning the subject for two whole days……"

And Jonathan and Maryal are both children of ministers. Did that make your travel through childhood and adolescence a bit uncomfortable? Or is what we've read all nonsense?

UNCLE BILL and BABI - hello, and I'm going to try to SLOW EVERYONE DOWN! Red for STOP! Good heavens, some of you are talking about events in Chapter Nine - before we know it we will be all over the book and have lost most of our discussion group. If we can, let us stay with the MOMENTOUS EVENTS in Chapter Two - the very essence of the birth of our nation.

BABI stated - It seems that there was more of a belief in public service then and an attitude that saw political service as statesmanship. I believe that still exists in some politicians, maybe not all, but when we say that power and ambition are the only motivations of political leaders many men have achieved that through wealth and yet still run for various offices in government. There you could say WELL, they have achieved everything else and can afford to live on smaller salaries, but I'm not sure that states it all.

What do the rest of you think - is power and ambition all that drives political leaders today?

And, speaking of John Adams' religious faith and numerous statements he made about God's hand being involved in the birth of the nation, such proclamations would not be politically correct today, I'm afraid - not when Osama Bin Laden is also claiming God on his side also. We've had enough wars when every side was claiming God. Best to separate wars and God, don't you think? Best to separate governments and God.

This somewhat answers question No. 3 in the heading.

WELCOME TIGER TOM, OUR NEW DISCUSSION LEADER IN OUR BOOKS!


Yeah!!! I hope I'm not embarassing you Tom, but we are so delighted to have a fresh voice in among us and to share the DL's tasks! And, as you can see, Tom is already critiquing McCullough's work when he says "He was all that McCullough wrote of him. But, I believe that the Author grew too fond of his subject and overlooked some things that might have given a little balance to the Biography."

And, ALF - Hello! Another one of our fine Discussion Leaders who states that His stubborn independence left him politically isolated.." And Harold questions the author, also.

We will be getting into more of that later, but what do you think of those questions through Chapter Two?

Gotta run…….more later, ella

Ella Gibbons
November 7, 2001 - 10:07 am
Oh, forgive me my long posts, but have you all taken the HISTORIC TOUR ABOVE? Did you see the State House, Carpenters' Hall and Christ Church? Philadelphia, thanks in a good part to Benjamin Franklin, had become the recognized center of American thought and ideas, - 30,000 population 23 printing establishments and 7 newspapers, 30 bookshops and 60 some taverns and coffeehouses. I live in a city today with approximately that population and we have no newspapers, one used bookshop (all paperbacks), and about 3 places to eat. Hahaha

Adams recorded in his diary on arrival in Philadelphia that he could not resist the "importunity" to go to the City Tavern…..where a few days later, he first met George Washington. The City Tavern is still there - you can see it by clicking on the Tour in the header.


SINFUL FEASTS! Turtle, flummery, jellies, sweet meats of twenty sorts, trifles, wipped sylllabubs, floating islands and then a dessert of fruits, raisins, almonds, pears, peaches-wines admirable and excellent, ducks, hams chickens, beef, creams, custards.

After these meals, it's a wonder any of them could stay awake to conduct business!

TigerTom
November 7, 2001 - 11:20 am
Harold and Alf,



One of you says that he never used the Alien and Seditions act and the other says he used part of it. Shows how little we actually know of Adams and his Presidency. I have heard and read that he DID use the act, quite often. That while he did not actually propose or actively push it, He was a mover of it behind the scenes. Who knows? The book is a Biography of John Adams and a well written one by an Author who obviously liked his subject a great deal. But should't not only the Book but the Real John Adams be discussed? He was, after all, human and like all humans had some weakness. Being a great man he was able to overcome most of those. Not all of them. So, when he became President he did a few things that he probably would not have normally but for the pressure of the office he held. The total man, I believe, should be discussed. this might make the book much more interesting.

Tiger Tom

MaryPage
November 7, 2001 - 11:26 am
I heard the author say on tv that he went into this project knowing nothing whatsoever of John Adams. His idea was to write a book about JEFFERSON AND ADAMS, and their presidencies and their personal and political relationships. He said he became so fascinated with Adams, that he threw out the whole idea of including Jefferson, and just concentrated on Adams. He said he enjoyed the whole thing immensely and, yes, that he came away with a humongous admiration of Adams.

Please note though, he went into the project with no preconceived notions. No prejudices one way or the other.

BaBi
November 7, 2001 - 11:30 am
On the question as to why McCullough wrote so much about Thomas Jefferson in a book about John Adams: It seems to me that McCullough wants to set the record straight re. Jefferson's involvement in the formation and writing of the Constitution. Before reading this book (still unfinished), I had thought the Constitution was almost entirely the brain child of T. Jefferson. Now it appears that many of the principles incorporated there originated in the guidelines writted by JA, to assist the colonial representatives in writting constitutions for their colonies. It also appears that the actual writing of the Const. was delegated to Jefferson, because of his undoubted skill with words, AND because JA was too busy!

I don't want to belittle Jefferson's role. He was a brilliant and principled man. I found a quote of his elsewhere (if it's in this book I haven't come across it yet): "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of men." Now you have to respect a man like that! ..Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 7, 2001 - 02:36 pm
TIGER TOM - Indeed, yes, we must discuss the TOTAL MAN and whether McCullough has included all his "warts." It does make a discussion more interesting and I hope anyone who has negative comments about JA would express them.

McCullough has included many of them - for instance, JA lost his temper and, consequently, could have disbanded the whole Continental Congress because of it. (95) A very respected man in Philadephia didn't speak to him for days because of the altercation.

Good reason, BABI, and thank you for answering the 2nd question in the heading.
"On the question as to why McCullough wrote so much about Thomas Jefferson in a book about John Adams: It seems to me that McCullough wants to set the record straight re. Jefferson's involvement in the formation and writing of the Constitution.


On the first or second day in Philadelphia (89) Adams drew up a list of what he wanted to see accomplished (taken from his diary:



He certainly had foresight, didn't he?

Wilan
November 7, 2001 - 03:31 pm
I have read this book straight through-was fascinated, amazed at what I didn't know and loved both John and Abigail. I checked some history on the Web-I have confused John and Sam somewhat, but realize now that John did not get half of the credit (except from Abigail) that he was due! Yes, I did think of President Truman when I was reading this-the inherent decency of the man, I think. I am not sure that either Jefferson or Adams could be norminated, never mind elected, by today's standards. Neither man gave an inch on his beliefs-did not 'get into bed' with anyone. I loved the fact that the author gave Abigail so much space in this biography-I think he recognized that she really 'made' the man who he was. JA was always a decent, ethical man but Abigail gave him the support that even the most decent of us need! Yes, JA and AA may have hoped that their letters would be saved-this was a 'first' in nations-even if it did not work it would go down in history and they were very willing to play a part-very proud of this accomplishment (as they should have been.) I am starting my second reading tonight-I get chills when I read of this awesome feat! Wilan PS I agree, not so fast! Savor it!

Ella Gibbons
November 7, 2001 - 05:49 pm
Wonderful post, WILAN! Thank you so much for answering the questions in the header. I agree with most of them. The very fact that JA wrote in his diary so many "facts" makes me believe that he also wrote letters to Abigail with the thought that they may be historic - he was a student of history! And Abigail, who I believe put a lot of thought into her letters, and being way ahead of her time might also have had that thought.

Are you saying that neither Adams or Jefferson knew the art of compromise and, therefore, couldn't be elected president today? Possibly, as neither had been in elective positions before had they? No, I think I'm wrong, wasn't Adams elected to the state legislature in MA? But for how long, I must look that up in the book.

Wouldn't it be something to see if they were able to stage a debate on TV today? We know Adams would love it, but would Jefferson consent to it? This is all hypothetical, but interesting to speculate on.

There is speculation today that all candidates for president must be handsome - if you believe that, how would either candidate stack up?

YES, LET US PROCEED SLOWLY - SAVOR - WE DON'T WANT TO MISS ANY OF THIS SPLENDID BOOK, THERE IS A REASON IT WAS ON THE BESTSELLER LIST FOR SO MANY WEEKS.

Ella Gibbons
November 7, 2001 - 06:19 pm
MARYPAGE - is this the interview you heard?

An Interview with David McCullough

richard Casparius
November 7, 2001 - 07:22 pm

richard Casparius
November 7, 2001 - 07:23 pm

richard Casparius
November 7, 2001 - 07:26 pm
Just wanted to say I was at libray today and looked for J Adams but it looked dull-didn't realize it was a different author-so will try again. I am very much into talking books as I drive 20 miles back and forth to work and it helps pass the time. Enjoy the book people and who knows I may just join you JC

Harold Arnold
November 7, 2001 - 09:01 pm
Ella in message #170 asked:
can you think of any politicians though that have been ministers?.


There was a catholic Priest in The House of Representatives about 10 years ago. Also the San Antonio City Council included a Methodist minister whose served several terms back in the 60’s. While ministers running for political office are probably not as common as a century ago I don’t think it too uncommon particularly so far as local offices are concern,

And again Ella wrote:
Oh, forgive me my long posts, but have you all taken the HISTORIC TOUR ABOVE? Did you see the State House, Carpenters' Hall and Christ Church? Philadelphia, thanks in a good part to Benjamin Franklin, had become the recognized center of American thought and ideas, - 30,000 population 23 printing establishments and 7 newspapers, 30 bookshops and 60 some taverns and coffeehouses. I live in a city today with approximately that population and we have no newspapers, one used bookshop (all paperbacks), and about 3 places to eat. Hahaha


My town, Seguin, TX today is about the same size as Philadelphia in 1776. Let ‘s see how our assets stack up in comparison. . We have a fine stately old Court House in the Texas tradition and two old early 19th century homes, one a log cabin another of stone with the unlikely name of Sevastopol. Also there is a large monument in a park inscribed with a long story telling how the city came to be named, Seguin. That’s about all we can muster of historical interest.

I suppose the 64 Taverns In old Philadelphia would about equate to our 7 or 8 motels with probably about 400 rooms spread out along I-10, plus the 20 to 40 restaurants, fast food places and etc serving food of various sorts, plus maybe a dozen lounges, bars, dance clubs and the like. (Just between us, a modern day traveler is unlikely to meet the likes of George Washington in any of these modern establishments. We have one 2nd rate newspaper, a daily. There are a couple of printing shops whose business is mostly printing advertising matter and things like wedding invitations and one has do it yourself Zerox capability. These print shops do not print books, but I’m sure for a price you could have your firebrand political pamphlet run off in large numbers. We have a middle sized Hasting Book/ Record store with a basic stock of current popular books as well as some old favorites and classics. There are one or two small used bookstores. Seguin is the home of a small Lutheran College with a growing reputation as a fine small educational institution. There are numerous churches of all faiths probably more numerically than in Philadelphia in the 18th century, but I would not go so far as to suggest that on any given Sunday they have more people in attendance than in Philadelphia when JA was there attending the Continental Congress. The Seguin Independent School district provides basic but not outstanding education from the earliest elementary years through high school. It actually succeeds in getting a significant proportion of the upcoming generation ready for college. Finally our radio station and access to San Antonio and Austin broadcast TV plus cable TV and/or satellite TV and dial-up Internet access provides our 21st century citizens with resources never dreamed possible by 18th century people.

And Oh, I almost forgot! We have a Super Walmart store. That’s one with a full line of groceries, meats and produce and an in-store McDonalds.

Browneyes
November 7, 2001 - 10:07 pm
Thirty years ago I took a Political Science class taught by an instructor whose hero was John Adams. He felt Adams was our brightest President but could not be elected in current times because he was not physically appealing and would not come across well on television. Most of us probably recall how FDR was not often shown in his wheelchair. Or the reaction to Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow in his debates with JFK. This instructor also stated John Adams had read many constitutional documents in their original Greek and Latin to prepare himself for helping to write our constitution. I can only hope my memory is serving me correctly. Furthermore, isn't it thrilling that at one point in time, a group of outstanding men such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, and other outstanding men came together to form this nation?

Jonathan
November 7, 2001 - 11:37 pm
Browneyes...hi...'Adams was our brightest President', according to the instructor in your PoliSci class. Do you remember, was there a young man in your class, by the name of David McCullough? He's another one who thinks very highly of John Adams, as we are discovering by reading his book...to the point of adulation...according to Tiger Tom. What has convinced instructor and author? I wonder if it is because both have spent countless hours reading all the letters and memos and things left behind by the Adamses? With over a thousand written by Abigail, alone, why wouldn't she find an important place in the book. Jefferson, too, as per the question above, must be included, in a big way, in a bio of John Adams. Jefferson and Adams did so much work together, discussed (see City Tavern in the Virtual Tour: 'JA and TJ often met here to enjoy "a feast of reason and a flow of soul" '.) Besides the author was looking ahead to the end of the book, when the two distinguished Fathers depart the stage together.

All this written material left behind by the Adamses, who, naturally for the record, consciously or not...writing the dispatches, so to speak, and thus determining this 'history' in their favor. An enormous amount of correspondence was released only forty or fifty years ago, and is proving a mine for scholars and biographers. Six miles or more of microfilm! Or is it perhaps, as Ella puts it, in a way that really caught my imagination...'History is always changing and it's good we have researchers who revisit it from time to time to give us a different opinion'. That's beautiful.

Back once more to The Will of Heaven, and the real John Adams, since uncle bill brought it up. I think it says something about the way John Adams looks at himself when he says: 'It has been the will of Heaven that we should be thrown into existence at a period...' Or is he just introducing divine purpose into the business of nation building, something in the way that the Will of Heaven lent divine authority to the Chinese Dynastic changes through the millenia?

A minister doesn't need public office, once he has a pulpit, and a captive audience. Politics by a different name.

My father, the Minister, may he rest in eternal peace, was a mainline Protestant. His son, not given to protest, blown hither and thither, dithered. Anscestral voices, coming throught the mists of time keep calling me. Gregorian chants and insence bring on the wish that the Last Rites will be there for me, when my time comes. When I hear the shofar and Kol Nidre, I wish that every day might be Yom Kippur. The Muezzin's call to prayer conjures up a vision of Mecca in the shimmering desert air.

Holy Cow!...but that's another story. Good Night, all.

Jonathan

betty gregory
November 8, 2001 - 12:12 am
I hate to make my entrance into this discussion with a disagreement, but, respectfully, Browneyes (cool name), I think John Adams just might slip past those modern requirements of being good looking to a television audience...in the only way possible...with his reputation for oratory, his ability to sway a tough audience with his from-the-heart speaking ability. When I saw David McCullough (twice) speak about Adams, both times he emphasized that it was John Adams who, with eloquence and strength, spoke at length to guide the Continental Congress through its most vulnerable and risky moments. McCullough left the impression in person and in the book that it was Adams' speaking ability that may have made the difference between declaring independence or not declaring independence....at that crucial time. That makes me think that he MIGHT be the sort TODAY whose skill with words (which must be tied to his passionate love for his country) would make us not care if he was handsome. Churchill wasn't that good looking. Nixon was downright ugly. Besides, hahahahaha, don't you know we'd fall in love with Abigail instantly.

On the other hand, maybe Adams could only speak for two hours at a time. Maybe he wouldn't be able to boil down what he had to say for television purposes. I don't know.

p.s. Did you know that Churchill's full name is Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Neither did I, but I looked it up for spelling purposes and that's what I found. Oh, those elegant English names.


betty

betty gregory
November 8, 2001 - 12:21 am
"...blown hither and thither, dithered..." Jonathan, your last whole paragraph (above) is wonderfully poetic, or, uh, what exactly was in your nightcap cup? A liqueur of muse?

betty

betty gregory
November 8, 2001 - 01:35 am
This is waaay off the topic, but, Harold, I know Seguin, Texas, your wonderful small city.

The last time I was in Seguin, I fell in love. I was there many years ago for a week long, junior-high school instrumental band clinic held at the local college. It was summer time, July, if I remember correctly. Only students who had won a number 1 slot in regional, then state, solo contests during the previous school year were invited to come. So, the top band students from all over Texas met for a week, rehearsed difficult pieces, then performed in a special Saturday evening concert that was open to the public.

I was 12 years old and by the end of the first day, Joe, the fellow sitting next to me in the French Horn section, had decided that he was in love. By the end of the second day, I knew I was, too. We ate lunch together, took walks in the July heat together (what heat) and sat out on the grass at dusk with other hand-holding couples, after the last rehearsal, in a park-like area on campus. I think it was the 3rd day that we hooked up with two other "couples" and thereafter, the 6 of us did everything together. There was something special planned for each evening, but I can only remember the big cookout just after dark with homemade peach ice cream. By Saturday night and the concert, we had exchanged home addresses, telephone numbers, promises to write and call and had talked of my meeting his parents who were coming to the Saturday concert. By Saturday morning, we were quite upset that we'd be parting on Sunday morning. He kept disappearing to buy me something, so, as he said, "you won't forget me." He bought me a bracelet, some kind of miniature journal that he wrote in, a heart keychain and something else I can't remember. Our hometowns were 400 miles apart.

He didn't write the first week, but I did. He didn't write the 2nd week, or the 3rd or 4th week. I wrote a second time. He never wrote back. He didn't call. During the first week of school in September, I was still moping and mourning. During band practice on the 3rd or 4th day, my heart almost stopped when my girlfriend who had gone to band clinic in July with me (we were the only two in the county who went) said she and Joe had been writing to each other.

I can still remember her shaking voice as she said she had decided to not keep it a secret any more......that she and Joe "had fallen in love" in Seguin on the last day, Sunday morning at breakfast (I was back in the dorm, packing) and she felt just terrible about hurting me. I'm laughing now as I'm thinking of that poor, sweet little girl (me) who had to look at that stack of letters Janice pulled out of her purse. She said I could read them if I wanted to. I said, no, thank you. Years later, during a visit to my parents, I ran into Janice and we had a good time laughing about fickle Joe.

I've never been in Seguin since that July, but all I have to do is pass a sign on the interstate that announces "Seguin" to remember where I left part of my 12 year old heart.


betty

Deems
November 8, 2001 - 07:56 am
Browneyes---I THINK that the Adams who is thought to be the "most brilliant" is John Quincy. He accompanied his father to Europe on numerous occasions and knew I have forgotten how many languages.

I don't have a source to cite, but not too long ago I was reading something--not our book, but something else that had a reference to John Quincy Adams' incredible mind.

Someone else here will doubtless know something more. So I throw it out.

Maryal

MaryPage
November 8, 2001 - 08:30 am
MARYAL! We are in disagreement here! I can't stand it!

But Dear Maryal, even George Will, with whom I seldom agree on anything, says HENRY ADAMS was the most brilliant of the line! Think about it! Look it up. Get back to me soonest!

BETTY, love your darling story about your romance at age 12! With such memories is our old age sweetened.

patwest
November 8, 2001 - 09:30 am
I have sent notices, for those interested in continuing to receive it to REPLY .... since email addresses come and go are changed and boxes get full.

But I have not heard from some of the people who post here regularly.

SO .... if you still want Book Bytes.....
Click on my name.
Click on my email address
Send me an email with Book Bytes in the subject line
And I will add your name to the new list.

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 09:38 am
WELCOME RICHARD CASPARIUS (aka Jeannie, I know her, haha) and BROWNEYES to our John Adams discussion.

Jeannie - you may have problems getting this book in your library as it was and still is on the bestseller list, but we hope you can join us. It's a big book, but we are taking it one chapter at a time - I think you would like it.

Browneyes stated - "Adams was our brightest President but could not be elected in current times because he was not physically appealing" Whereas, BETTY, disagrees and thinks his magificent oratory would win you over.

WHAT DO THE REST OF YOU THINK?

JONATHAN - thank you for your post and answering a few questions in the heading. Hmmmm, you think all the written material left by the Adams' family "determined history in their favor." That's an interesting point of view and you, no doubt, also noticed that these materials were only made public 50 year ago. Future historians will not have the problem with presidents - how many presidential libraries are there now? And are the expenses of same paid for by the public? Whew!!!

Yes, definitely, JA was " introducing divine purpose into the business of nation building;" however, many of us everyday will say something similar like "Dear God, do help get through this….." and it could no more be a prayer than if we said "Gosh darn it." Sometimes it could be nothing more serious than grease in a skillet catching on fire! And perhaps JA meant it just in that way.

Don't stop with "HOLY COW" - tell us more, Jonathan, about the dithering son (what have you been up to?) and the ancestral voices.

HAROLD AND BETTY! Delightful descriptions and stories of Seguin - where did it get it's name? Loved the 12-year old broken heart story, Betty!

Oh, a battle here between MARYPAGE AND MARYAL!!!! And a battle of wits - hahahaha

Everyone - please click on Pat's name and email her to receive YOUR COPY OF BOOKBYTES - how else will you know what's going on in our Books? A WONDERFUL NEWSLETTER!

Let's talk about the physical attributes and the personalities of these two which are very well described in this chapter. Which would you prefer as a friend?

BaBi
November 8, 2001 - 12:32 pm
I'm in agreement with Betty. Though JA might not be ideal TV hero material, I think his top-notch oratorical gifts would make him shine in a debate. The handome guy doesn't look nearly so attractive if his opponent is making him look like an ass.

A question was asked about the reason or the title "True Blue". Isn't blue supposed to represent loyalty? I can't remember for sure just now what the blue in the flag is supposed to represent, but I believe it is something to that effect. I know the red represents courage. If this is correct, than the "True Blue" would refer to those men who were loyal.

I was interested in the comments on "Common Sense"/i> (p.96), speaking of it's "stunning effect", widely read and approved, rousing. Yet Adams, felt that Mr. Payne had a "better hand at pulling down than building". He notes that Pain's accessment of available war materials was highly inaccurate, and that he had a poor grasp of government. It was then that Adams began putting on paper what he saw as necessary to a sound government. I believe he thought it advisable, in view of the popularity of "Common Sense", to begin settin out some sound principles of government.

I was impressed by the British spies evaluation of Adams as having the abiity to see "large subjects largely". That is a rare gift, don't you think? Most of us tend to seize upon those aspects of the whole with which we are familiar and/or have the strongest opinions, and pursue those subjects to the neglect of all else.

..Babi

Ann Alden
November 8, 2001 - 02:30 pm
Ella

You asked if Abigal and John might have known that their letters should be saved for posterity? In the book "Abigal and John Adams Letters to Each Other", it says, "Yes, they did!" In May or June of 1776, he purchased a blank journal and started copying all of his letters to her and maybe to others. He also suggested that she might think of doing the same thing as her letters were more worth saving than his. He was also concerned that she might not receive all of his letters so ask her to quote the dates of the ones that she answered. He opined that she couldn't get a book such as his and as the children were growing better with their handwriting that they might do all of her copying. (Sounds like something my husband would suggest, trying to make sure that I was busy enough. As if raising three children, taking in other's children, keeping a farm and home going wasn't enough back in the good ole' days!!)

For Babi or was that Wiban, here's a good site about Samuel Adams. Samuel Adams. I asked previously if anyone remembers seeing a TV show about the Patriots with Sam Adams being a conspicuous member? How about you?

Elizabeth N
November 8, 2001 - 02:59 pm
Speaking of public men, their appearances and personalities, here is what John Le Carre says about bin Laden in the current thenation.com, "The stylized television footage and photographs of bin Laden suggest a man of homoerotic narcissism, and maybe we can draw a grain of hope from that. Posing with a Kalashnikov, attending a wedding or consulting a sacred text, he radiates with every self-adoring gesture an actor's awarerness of the lens. He has height, beauty, grace, intelligence and magnetism, all great attributes unless you're the world's hottest fugitive and on the run..." That doesn't sound like John Adams, does it?

Harold Arnold
November 8, 2001 - 03:11 pm
My impression from the book is that JA truly believed that all events, things and persons great and small were the will of God. It follows that he would say the quote given by Jonathan in Message 184, “It has been the will of Heaven that we should be thrown into existence at a period.” No I don’t think the quote to be a propaganda attempt to claim a divine purpose in the nation building process in which he was involved.

Maryal and Mary Page, My impression is that JA was quite smart. I think he would have scored high on IQ and other modern tests. Would he have been the subject of jokes by 18th century late night comedians such as Jay Leno and David Letterman? My answer is probably yes, but the humor would have been based on his being dull, but appearing dumb (where have we seen that recently) or on his appearance as the title proposed in the House of Representatives for JA as Vice President, “his retundity.”

How do you think the 18th century late night comedians would treat JA? How about Thomas Jefferson.? Oh boy a sure scandal there if the press found out about Sally. (I keep forgetting JA and TJ came 200years too soon for that.)

And Betty, I enjoyed your sad poignant story of true love in Seguin. That is a side of the town that I had not realized before; “the City of true Love.,” and song writers turning out songs like, “I left my heart in Seguin. But in our opinion, that guy wasn’t good enough for you!

Ella the story of how Seguin got its name is on my web site though seldom visited at Seguin

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 03:27 pm
Thank you for this, BABI: I was impressed by the British spies evaluation of Adams as having the abiity to see "large subjects largely". That is a rare gift, don't you think? Most of us tend to seize upon those aspects of the whole with which we are familiar and/or have the strongest opinions, and pursue those subjects to the neglect of all else.

Indeed, we do think it is a rare gift!

AHA! ANN brings us the proof, I should have asked you as I know you have a copy of that book. Interesting that, and this proves, once again, that he had foresight to see how valuable they might prove to be to historians. Which leads me to the conclusion that he THOUGHT THE WAR WAS GOING TO BE WON against mighty England. Considering the odds against these rebels that was some leap of faith.

Thank you both for those comments. I've been working outside several hours today until the wind and rain forced me in and thinking of how similar Adams and Truman: both came from farming families, both were plain speaking men, scrupulously honest, both had marriages of love and friendship, both adhered to moral guidelines and neither made a fortune in their lifetimes, certainly not through politics.

Jefferson thought he was wealthy, how he kept the facts hidden from, not only HIMSELF, but from everyone is an amazing feat.

Pages 111 through 117 give wonderful descriptions of the two men and describes the many commonalities they had.

I would favor Adams as a friend I believe as I'm from the midwest where we speak frankly - if Adams was puzzled by Jefferson far be it from me to understand the man, particularly when I read that he had comparatively little interest in people.

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 03:31 pm
Hi, everyone, we are all posting together, WHEE!

Must stop and read your posts! Fun, fun!

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 03:36 pm
LOUISE - not John Adams, no, but this much sounds rather like Jefferson - "He has height, beauty, grace, intelligence and magnetism, all great attributes" - don't you think?

HAROLD - Oh, I must stop and look up "retundity" in the dictionary- mercy! Also I found a good site for Common Sense - that stirring pamphlet. I'll bring it here in a minute.

EDIT - that word "retundity" isn't in the dictionary, Harold???????????

And could you be speaking of Dubya, Hahaha! Was listening to someone (forget) who said that you couldn't ask Dubya a question for which an answer might require more than 10 seconds. I hope I'm not offending one here. Say it isn't so, please!

Harold Arnold
November 8, 2001 - 03:57 pm
The Webster’s On-Line collegiate dictionary defines the term true blue as follows:

true blue Function: noun Etymology: from the association of blue with constancy Date: 1762 : one who is true-blue

I have always thought of it as a particularly American term. It did first appear in 1762 at the end of the French Indian war. John Adams was certainly consistent throughout his life and particuarly in 1776 he was a consistent strong advocate of independence... In the chapter David McCullough divides the delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress in early 1776 as falling into 3 categories: The loyalist, not openly, but at heart), the timid, and the “true blue.” Needless to say JA was the bluest of the blue. .

Thank you Ann Alden for the Samuel Adams link. This site includes copies of many of his writings between 1762 and 1802

Harold Arnold
November 8, 2001 - 04:08 pm
Ella, the word, rotundity," appears in the book near the top of page 408. I did not find it in my dictionary either. I took it to be an invented word refering to a large waste line, but perhaps from the humerous verse coined at Adams's expense also on page 408, it was refering to his vanity which in the poem ...."swelled like a toad."

MaryPage
November 8, 2001 - 05:28 pm
ROTUNDITY is not a made up word. It appears in all of my dictionaries, and means: The state of being round or plump. A rotund object or protrusion.

HAROLD, I think Adams was extremely smart as well, but, like Maryal, I have heard that Q was smarter. I believe there to be ample evidence of Henry's brilliance.

The political press in those days did hear about Jefferson's Sally. Opposition politicians mocked Jefferson and his "dusky Sally", as they called her. Some believed it, many took it to be scurrilous gossip. Newspapers in Washington, D.C. and in Virginia definitely knew about it. In any event, it does not seem to have spread across the country. Who knows really, as we were not around then.

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 05:54 pm
Thanks for that definition of true-blue, sounds good to me, Harold.

MARYPAGE - do you have this book? You can look in the index under Hemmings Sally, and find the references to her in this book. Yes, there was gossip about Jefferson and his slave during his lifetime.

Dinner interrupted my posting before. Here is the pamphlet, COMMON SENSE, in its entirety, the little pamphlet that was a "call to arms, an unabashed argument for war, and a call for American independence" that had such a stunning effect on the colonies. Note that it was Benjamin Rush who gave it the title and it was Benjamin Franklin who brought Thomas Paine to America.

COMMON SENSE

While at that site I also found Benjamin Franklin's autobiography which in the first two paragraphs states:

"Having emerged from the poverty and obscurity in which I was born and bred, to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world, and having gone so far through life with a considerable share of felicity, the conducing means I made use of, which with the blessing of God so well succeeded, my posterity may like to know, as they may find some of them suitable to their own situations, and therefore fit to be imitated.

That felicity, when I reflected on it, has induced me sometimes to say, that were it offered to my choice, I should have no objection to a repetition of the same life from its beginning, only asking the advantages authors have in a second edition to correct some faults of the first."

The whole book can be found at this site:

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

MaryPage
November 8, 2001 - 06:09 pm
Yes, Ella, I do have the book, but have only read the first 3 chapters, so do not know yet what it says about Sally Hemmings. I only know what I remember having read of the affair previously.

Descendants of the Rush and Adams families intermarried eventually, and there are people today who are descendants of both, though not, so far as I know, of both John Adams and Benjamin Rush. To my certain knowledge, a female descendant of John Adam's Uncle Joseph married a descendant of Benjamin Rush's, and the family still hails from the Philadelphia area and has the name Rush. I should say, some of the family, for goodness knows how widely they have branched out.

Deems
November 8, 2001 - 06:54 pm
MaryPage---I agree with you that Henry was the most intelligent in the family, but the original remark was about the most intelligent president this country has ever had, and I think that John Quincy was the Adams in contention. Not to say that his father wasn't brilliant or anything.

I am having so much fun reading everyone's comments.

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 07:20 pm
Hi MARYAL! I just went to my library site to find a biography of Benjamin Franklin and there are 100 of them! Mercy! Several that are just about Franklin and his women - AHA! No wonder the man speaks of "felicity" huh? Did you note his estranged, illegitimate son, who was the ROYAL governor of New Jersey, was arrested.

Anyone have a recommendation of a good one about him?

And while I'm speaking of biographies, why is it McCullough has just written about strong men, men of character, like Teddy Rooselvelt, Truman, Adams, the weaker males might be just as interesting, if not more so. And why not a woman in history? Shall we protest?

Ella Gibbons
November 8, 2001 - 07:29 pm
That remark made me think of the original header I had for this book, but all felt it was too long and I had to remove it. It was a picture of Abigail (the same one in the book) with this dynamic quote from one of her letters:(104)

"Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute........"


She should have stopped right there!

'from a '60's feminist....

Harold Arnold
November 8, 2001 - 08:44 pm
Mary Page, The dictionary I used was the Merriam Webster On-Line. I entered “Rotundity" (or so I thought). I got nothing. To day it brings up “rotund” which is what I figured it referred to meaning I probably made a typo error (as I’m prone to do) when I checked it earlier. Sorry about that.

I don’t know much about John Q’s later career but from the book he certainly had the advantage of an early practical education.. He spent 5 years or so in Europe with JA during which he served as a secretary and aid. When the Adams’ departed in 1778 John Q was 11 years old. At the end of the war he had gone to Moscow as secretary to the American diplomat sent to the Russian Court. By the time he got to Harvard after the war, I suspect so far as practical diplomatic education was concerned, he was better educated than his professors. And JA had seen to it that he had not neglected his Latin and Greek, and he was fluent in French and probably Dutch.

Deems
November 8, 2001 - 08:49 pm
Ella---From what I've read, old Ben was quite the rake. A man who truly believed in "Early to bed......." Hahahahaha.

Jonathan
November 8, 2001 - 10:33 pm
and you tell it so well yourself, betty. Both as a raconteur - I remember being charmed, years ago it seems, on the way to Florida from Texas, on the way to visit the grandparents - as well as a skillful appraiser of John Adams' excellent prospects of electoral success in a modern American political milieu. He once spoke for five hours. America challenged, would be stimulus enough for him to play a leading role any time. And nobody could put it better than he himself re political motivation (question 1). 'I feel an awe upon my mind...when I consider the great events which are passed...and that I may have been instrumental of touching some springs and turning some wheels', p110.

He seems to have been such a multi-talented man, capable in all areas of the political process on the way to independence. What I find interesting is that he was believed by some, to have been the author of Common Sense. We've heard how he felt about it, but given its electrifying effect, he might be forgiven if he ever wished that he had...to move things along, of course. What an amazing document! With such cogent reasons to justify casting off a king. How come Thomas Paine was never elected to public office? Or was he? Was it for lack of trying, or was it for reasons which might be found in this description of him: 'a scrofulous, pock-marked English immigrant with a bulbous nose, a fondness for the bottle, and a hot, restless eye, who had abandoned a wife and several small children to cast his lot with the cause of liberty in America'? (Smith,239) Not much for looks, eh?

Back to the good-looking man on the dust jacket of my book. Abigail was fearful of losing him to tha ladies of Paris. Like what happened to TJ, when he went over there? How fortunate Adams was to have such an excellent wife. With that 'all men would be tyrants' she was just being saucy, and teasing her doting husband. But pity poor John Dickinson, that 'piddling genius' (95), bedevilled by his wife's pacifist views. 'If I had...such a wife, I believe I should have shot myself'. What a way to talk, Mr President-to-be. And in a letter yet!

'She wished he would burn her letters',106. 'You bid me burn your letters, but I must forget you first', 107. That might go part of the way to answering question seven. What became of question seven?

Ella, Although I haven't read it yet, it certainly looks good: H W Brands' The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, just out a year or so ago. Yes, my copy says copyright 2000. It saddened me to read that BF returned from his expedition to Canada...'ill and exhausted'.

Jonathan, sans visions, sans voices, not even a cow to milk.

BaBi
November 9, 2001 - 09:53 am
I think I really need to see if there is a good biography of Harry Truman. My information on him is only of the most general sort, and my impressions of him were formed when he was president. Mostly from hearing my elders speak of him. He was not at all popular at the time, but my father (an astute and perceptive man), respected a number of his decisions.

I have read B. Franklin's autobiography, and have it around here somewhere. I need to find it and read again what he has to say about these times, and his part in them. I was surprised to read McCullough's description of him as weakened by age and infirmity, and unable to participate as fully as I had always thought he did.

I continue to be impressed by the extent of JA's contribution. I never knew he had fought for a U.S. Navy, and wrote it's first Rules and Regulations. He had to educate himself on the subject first, in addition to all he was already doing.

This statement gave me pause for thought. pg. 101, "If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way." (I tend to be a middle way person, myself.) Politics, which must weigh the many varying, and often opposing, needs and desires of the people, is the ultimate art of compromise and must find a workable "middle way" in most things. BUT, once we move from the arena of decision-making to action, there must be commitment and decisiveness. Half-heartedness is sure defeat.

..Babi

Wilan
November 9, 2001 - 10:15 am
BaBi-David McCullough has written a 1117 page biography of Harry S. Truman-I have just ordered it from my library-the wait is undetermined (which means, long!) but I think I would want to read McCullough's biography of the man above all others. He seems so fond and yet, so fair of his subjects. In regards to the first question-I think that what motivates politicians is power and success (yes, even JA!) and a passion for what they believe in. I am not sure that I have them in the right order-I think that maybe passion for what they believe in is the first motivation, especially when I think of Thomas Jefferson-I believe if it was not for his strong beliefs, he would have been very content to live the life of a rich man with his books, his inventions and his beloved Monticello. I visited Monticello and to this day, it shows the love and care that he had for his 'Little Mountain' home. His inventions are all over the place, from a seven day clock to tunnels from the klitchen to the house to keep his 'servants' dry! He really did have the best of both worlds there. His lifestyle and his debts were those of a rich man of his day. Sort of a familiar lifestyle for today, too! Living on credit is not a new idea! The next book that I am looking for is on Abigail Adams. I loved her! The independent, liberal, free thinking woman-I wonder how many there were that we do not know anything about! Wilan

Ella Gibbons
November 9, 2001 - 11:11 am
As we get further into the book all of you will reading more about John Q, but thanks, HAROLD, for that brief summary of his education.

HAHAHA Maryal! Love your one-liners. Come often!

And more thanks to JONATHAN for that description of Thomas Paine - very good reasons why the man didn't get much further in life than his pamphlet. Too bad, the "drink" got him - but you say, Jonathan, that Abby was teasing John in her statement that all men are tyrants - I know, I know - John laughed about it, but I think Abby certainly recognized the inequalities existing between the sexes and may have been half serious while at the same time knowing full well that "our" time had not as yet come.

Question #7 was answered fully I thought by Ann Alden's post #193 - proof by his letters that he wanted to preserve them. Furthermore, I need more space in the header for more questions as we get into the next chapter. (Thanks for the recommendation for the Franklin book, I've written it down and will get to my library site today and reserve it.)

Great quote, BABI - ""If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way."

Isn't this a wonderful discussion, with all of us finding ideas which our mind lingers on and we ponder over. Is that an indication of what a good book is - one that we can read twice and still find things we missed? I think so. Can we think for a moment (not long) about "the middle way" - isn't that what we did in Vietnam and failed? We certainly went all the way in WWII and the Gulf War. How about what we are doing now in Afghanistan?

" a passion for what they believe in. I am not sure that I have them in the right order-I think that maybe passion for what they believe in is the first motivation"


YES, YES, WILAN! I do, too - power, ambition, success are in there somewhere but our political leaders are civic-minded people and want to do what is right for the country. Yes, I believe that.

SHALL WE PROCEED TO CHAPTER THREE? ANY OBJECTIONS? Speak now or forever hold your tongue, your fingers, your thoughts, your computer, whatever!!!

Is the title of your chapter three - "COLOSSUS OF INDEPENDENCE?"

I read a short paragraph some time ago in TIME I believe that McCullough was called down by a historian for stating that this phrase (the title of this chapter) was uttered by Jefferson and, consequently, he did change it in later printings. But when I've mentioned this to a couple of people they had heard nothing about it - was I dreaming it?

robert b. iadeluca
November 9, 2001 - 11:14 am
I just want to say that this is a MAGNIFICENT discussion! I am not participating in solely because of time issues and not for lack of interest.

Robby

Deems
November 9, 2001 - 11:16 am
Ella---My chapter three has title "Colossus of Independence."

If you were dreaming about the paragraph in TIME that mentioned an objection, you have WAY more literary dreams than I do!

Ella Gibbons
November 9, 2001 - 11:22 am
Hey, Robby, I've been reading some in your Civilization discussion, too, and it is great. Too many good ones all at once.

Maryal - Last night I dreamt I had 12 children and couldn't decide what to do with all their shoes? Shoes, I was overwhelmed with shoes! Hahah

Louise H
November 9, 2001 - 12:33 pm
Ella, I think JA was a "middle of the road" or willing to compromise on many things, but not on things that he felt would defeat the purpose of writing a Constitution that would be strong enough to bind the colonies/states into a nation. He had seen how the Confederation failed - each state went its own way as much as possible, during the war.

Adams recognized the problems inherent in attempting to form a republic out of so many individual states, spread over such a wide area (I believe the southern border of Va. went down to what is now Fl.and the western border was undefined. It was vaguely described as being the Mississippi, in some documents) So he always kept his eye on forming a strong union, and would not compromise on anything that he felt might hinder the union.

I dont remember all the names, etc. but he was perfectly willing to work with politicians he did not agree with in many things. He did not like the French politicians he had to deal with on his first assignment to France. They treated him with scorn for the most part. But he was polite and civil to them, and always continued to try and maintain a good relationship with them.

He was a religious man, and did believe that God was the power behind the workings of man. When I think of him, I am reminded of one of the rules the old nuns in my school used to quote :"Pray like everything depended on God, and work like everything depended on you." I think Adams often reflected this.

He was not a "democrat" or a republican - he was a middle of the roader. He believed that a one house congress -one where all the members were elected by the general population-except for women and slaves, of course -could very easily devolve into mob rule. At the same time, he did not want a Congress lead by "aristocrats" - wealthy propertied Virginia plantation owners, rich merchants and bankers, etc.who would be concerned primarily with their own interests.

He wanted two houses, the upper house which would be elected by representatves in each state, gathered for that purpose, would keep a rein on the lower house since the upper house would be made up of men of more education, and presumably wiser in judgement. At the same time, he wanted a lower house to be elected directly by the people, as that house would have the interests of the "lower classes" in mind, and would act as a balance to the upper house which would be concerned with the best interests of the wealthy.

I think McCullough was capable of forming an independent judgment of Adams, - he liked the man, and he is an intelligent man, who could recognize the truth when he saw. It must have given him great pleasure to discover that the truth about JA was so admirable. I read once that McCullough was going to write a biography of Picasso, but stopped it soon after beginning, because he disliked the man intensely. Apparently Picasso could be described as a terrible human being (and a rotten painter,some would say). So McCullough found a man in Adams that he could admire, and could write about honestly, with perfect peace of mind. Louise

Jonathan
November 9, 2001 - 02:42 pm
Wilan, I have just the book for you. Abigail Adams: An American Woman, by Charles W Akers. Its only 230 pages long; but it's really good.

Ella, I do believe that your dream about many shoes is very significant, and should be interpreted with your previous post in mind, in which you wonder about what we are doing in Afghanistan. There is no doubt in my mind, but that you were subconsciously mulling over the tribal numbers and confusions in that sad-sack country. Alright...alright...I was just trying to help.

Jonathan

Deems
November 9, 2001 - 02:52 pm
Ella--Now THAT is a more acceptable and ORDINARY dream! Your mental health is hereby certified.

Harold Arnold
November 9, 2001 - 04:08 pm
Robby, I realize your time problem. I have the same problem with your Durant discussion. Pleas feel free to comment here any time you may be inclined to do so.

Harold Arnold
November 9, 2001 - 04:08 pm
Anyone interested in additional information on Thomas Paine a Google search on his name yields many sites. Here is short 1500 word biographical sketch outlining the life and thinking of this interesting man whose writings led to the approval of the Declaration of Independence and who later participated in the French Revolution. Thomas Paine

One of the Thomas Paine sites I examined this afternoon included a Review by Richard N. Rosenfeld, of the David McCullough “John Adams” biography. This review was bitterly critical of the role of John Adams based on the theory that he was heart and sole a High Federalist and in reality a Monarchist and no friend of democracy. He was critical of McCullough and his book for what is pictured as the rewriting and distortion of history.

I don’t know anything about this author other than what is said on the site but he does give arguments that seem to parallel some of the background information that Mc McCullough mentioned briefly. Here is what the article says about Rosenfield’s background.
Richard N. Rosenfeld is the author of American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns: The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and The Heroic Newspaper That tried to Report It (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1998)


You can read the review by clicking: The Adams Tyranny

My siding contractor has now finished the instalation of new siding on my Guadalupe county house. This is only the second instlation contract I have used to complete the house. The other one was the septic tank and system in the early 1980's I did all the rest myself. For pictures of the house click:The house is finished (more or less)

BaBi
November 9, 2001 - 04:27 pm
Wilan, I agree with you that only a sense of his duty, and his strong feelings about freedom, would have lured T.J. away from his home and his many projects there.

On Tom Paine, there is a book by Howard Fast entitled "Citizen Tom Paine". It is enjoyable, but since it is written as a historical novel, it's probably not too reliable a picture of Mr. Paine. The picture on the front of my paperback copy looks as if it might be authentic, tho. It certainly matches the description of Paine posted earlier. ...Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 9, 2001 - 06:12 pm
WHAT IS THIS, MARYAL? My mental health is certifiably? What - insane or healthy, you didn't say. Hahaha - And JONATHAN - yeah, you are stretching a point there.

BUT LOOK HERE - I DIDN'T DREAM IT - IT WAS TRUE! Just read this statement in Rosenfeld's article:

"David McCullough takes us on a dramatic and heroic ride with the founding father he aims to glorify, most effectively through the worshipful phrase "the colossus of independence," which he employs as a chapter title and then falsely attributes to Thomas Jefferson. (This nonexistent quotation has been perpetuated in reviews and even appeared as the cover line on an issue of The New York Times Book Review.)"

Talk about a DEBATE! This is serious stuff we are reading here - what do you think about this article? Do you take this seriously? Has the reading public?

WOW! How about this line:


" Had McCullough chosen, unlike Adams, to attach a higher value to popular democracy and to the Bill of Rights than to the nation's separation from England, he might have described John Adams the way many of the nation's democrats, including Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Franklin's grandson and protégé, Benjamin Franklin Bache, judged him, that is, as an admirer of monarchy who, in fact, opposed popular democracy and trampled on the Bill of Rights. "


DO YOU FIND YOURSELF ALL OF SUDDEN CHEERING FOR ADAMS OR BOOING ADAMS OR ARE YOU A "MIDDLE OF THE ROADER?"

IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THAT ARTICLE HAROLD JUST BROUGHT HERE, DO SO NOW!!!

Here it is again: THE ADAMS TRYANNY

Ella Gibbons
November 9, 2001 - 06:34 pm
As if that article wasn't enough to influence us against JOHN ADAMS read this:

"This Library of America volume collects the work of one of the founding fathers less well known in our own day for his writing. Yet, "Even more so than Jefferson, who inherited slaves and land, Hamilton made his way in the world by his pen," writes Caleb Crain, the author of "American Sympathy: Men, Friendship, and Literature in the New Nation." Jefferson once wrote, "Hamilton is really a colossus to the anti-republican party" -- this at a moment when Hamilton had defeated him in the court of public opinion with a hail of pamphlets. Crain summarizes Hamilton's position: "For a dozen years, Hamilton stood in relation to the presidency roughly as Laurence Tribe or Richard Posner stands to some of the justices in the Supreme Court today: without holding the office, he was kind enough to help do the thinking necessary for those who did. His power consisted merely in his words," Crain writes.

Hamilton wrote most of "The Federalist." Later, in 1800, Crain concludes, "he assassinated the character of John Adams, his own party's candidate, while Adams's re- election was still pending. And in 1804 his disparagements of Aaron Burr provoked a challenge to a duel, in which Hamilton was killed. He enjoyed writing what he really thought more, perhaps, than a politician should."


Note: Jefferson's use of the word "colossus" here! Perhaps McCullough made an error and interchanged Adams and Hamiltons' names?

Harold Arnold
November 9, 2001 - 09:13 pm
I don't understand why, but just about every post I have made the past several days ends up with 2 copies on the board. Again I just deleted the 2nd copy of the two posts I made earlier this evening. Anybody got an idea as to why?

Regarding the description of Adams as the "colossus of Independence" by McCullough the Rosenfeld article includes the following paragraph:
From the first sentence of McCullough's beautifully written new book John Adams ("In the cold, nearly colorless light of a New England winter, two men on horseback traveled the coast road below Boston, heading north."), David McCullough takes us on a dramatic and heroic ride with the founding father he aims to glorify, most effectively through the worshipful phrase "the colossus of independence," which he employs as a chapter title and then falsely attributes to Thomas Jefferson. (This nonexistent quotation has been perpetuated in reviews and even appeared as the cover line on an issue of The New York Times Book Review.) To McCullough, Adams' pursuit of French aid was "one of his own proudest efforts," his final receipt of a Dutch loan "simply extraordinary," his unsuccessful tenure as ambassador to Britain (where he failed to negotiate a single commercial agreement) understandable: "Nor could it be imagined that another of his countryman... could have done better." Etc.


Apparently Rosenfeld is saying Jefferson never used the word, "colossus" to describe Adams. Ella's article says TJ applied the word to Hamilton as the "colossus of the anti-republican party, i.e. the Federalist party.

Hamilton has always seemed a rather shady character to me since High School. I remember a key sentence from the chapter on the Constitution that read, "Hamilton favored a monarchy, with Washington on the throne." Reading the McCullough book and the chapter on the Burr/Hamilton duel in Ellis, "Founding Brothers" did nothing to improve Hamilton's position with me. He seems always too ready to do shady political deals if they served his purpose even if it hurt his own party. He was, however an outstanding Secretary of Treasury.

Getting back to the Rosenfeld quote given above of the opening lines of the McCullough book that has JA and his companion "traveling the coast road below Boston, heading north....". My question is, they were on their way to Philadelphia, why were they heading north? Since Philadelphia is south of Boston, it seems that they would be heading south?????

Jonathan
November 9, 2001 - 10:19 pm
Harold - you raise a good point by wondering about the south/north problem of John Adams' journey to Philadelphia, in the winter of 1776. Chapter one makes a great beginning for a biography, which can often be dull, until things start happening. It impressed me to find out that The Road to Philadelphia, which Adams sets out on, on that winter day, was the end of the road, in a way, of the first thirty years of Adams' life. Very clever and interesting. Starting a biography at a high point of Adams' career. And then moving around backwards, and back and forth a little, making it a little difficult at times knowing just what year it is. I had a minor problem with that.

When Adams headed north it did seem odd. One has to get to page 72, to read that he had a dinner engagement with Gen Washington in Cambrige, on the 24th of January. It was an unusual dinner, you will remember. Then, the next day, I believe, Adams and his travelling companion saddled up and headed south, on that wintry road.

A most ineresting development, the problem with the title of the third chapter. Given the ambiguity of the title of the first chapter, perhaps...no, for a starter, I'll accept McCullough's estimation of John Adams' stature, and also accept that as a designation for a number of others who shared the historic stage with him.

It's been a lot of 'fun' getting caught up in the spirit of '76; but I have to admit to a lot of eager anticipation as we get farther into Adams' career. Reference to the Alien and Sedition Act, for example, a while back, as a contentious issue, had me flipping ahead to read more. Occasionally I do with a book what McCullough does with time in the first chapter. If chapter 16 looks more interesting than chapter 5, for example, then the latter gives way to the former. Now then, where are we in the book?

Jonathan

Ann Alden
November 10, 2001 - 07:12 am
Ok, Jonathan, now that I am completely confused as to where to read! Hahaha! I heard a discussion on this book on BookTV a few months and according to the speakers, McCullough really canonized John Adams. No warts! Funny that we all wondered about the direction that he was going when we read it. In the first sentence of "America Afire" by Bernard Weisberger, the same literary license is used for getting our attention.

"It was 4;00am on March 4--still dark and wintry cold in Washinton--when a fat old man of 65, without retinue or fanfare, settled his sleepy bones into a public statecoach."

The quote above is about when he left DC at the end of his presidency. Seems like both authors used the same way of putting us in a certain stage of Adams life. In one--when he was around 30 and young and just beginning his political life--and the other, coming to the end of his political life.

Ella Gibbons
November 10, 2001 - 08:15 am
That is the modern trend in books, haven't you noticed, and McCullough is attempting to be modern. The rules have changed - you do not start at the beginning of the protagonist's life, you start in the middle and go backwards and then you jump ahead. Don't ask me why - maybe to try to keep the reader on his toes?

Would all of you please turn to page 163, third paragraph down, last sentence, to see if you have this "Jefferson was to remember Adams as the 'colossus of independence."

This is where I believe McCullough corrected his text. I am wondering, as he made one mistake here, if he made several??? However his Source Notes and Bibliography are so impressive! Those Source Notes alone are 44 pages of very small print.

ANN AND JONATHAN - did you read all of the Rosenfeld article, you must click on the "full text" or whatever it says to get the whole of it. It would be interesting to hear what McCullough says about that - does anyone know this Rosenfeld? What are his credentials? I couldn't find them other than this article appeared in HARPER'S MAGAZINE.

BEGIN CHAPTER THREE NOW







And the debate went on and on ……….July 1st, 1776

"brave this storm in a skiff of paper!"….one has to admire the stubborness of Dickinson, if for no other reason.(126)

and the "Atlas" of the hour - the man to whom the country is most indebted for the great measure of independency" (Richard Stockton/

JA gave the greatest speech of his life, the most powerful and important speech heard in the Congress since it first convened. (David McCullough)

There is no proof of that latter statement, only McCullough's words and the fact that JA was asked to repeat the speech and the recollections presumably of a few of those present. Jefferson thought JA was "not graceful nor elegant, nor remarkably fluent" but that he spoke "with a power of thought and expression that moved us from our seats."

But the speech didn't carry the day - 4 colonies refused to proclaim independence!




JONATHAN - you skip around in the book? Now that, I cannot do.

Hi HAROLD - I wanted to look at your house but that clickable was not any good. Try another! I want to see the house that Harold built!

Ella Gibbons
November 10, 2001 - 09:03 am
Oh, golly, you are all certainly tired by now of my "screaming" that I did over that article. (and probably tired of me, I do go on....) but..

Harold said he never has liked Alexander Hamilton. Here is a review in the NYT about a new book out about Mr. Hamilton. Looks like a "must read" to me. Shall we sometime in the future? Robby sent this to me in an email and thank you, Robby! A couple of paragraphs from the review - not in sequence.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON


Thomas Jefferson has long been the founding father most popular with American writers. He had writerly faults: a tinkerer's curiosity about nearly everything, the inability to resist a fancy French idea and the misconception that these were intellectual strengths. He also believed that scholarly ladies and gentlemen could live happily and virtuously on farms distant from the corrupting metropolis -- an ideal that lurks behind such ventures as Brook Farm, Walden and the MacDowell Colony. Even today, writers under Jefferson's influence augustly depart for the mountains or the plains, vowing to remain pure, free from the vulgarizing marketplace.

'The manner in which a thing is done,'' Hamilton once advised a future mayor of New York, ''has more influence than is commonly imagined.'' Today he is remembered for his deeds -- arguing New York into ratifying the Constitution, financing the Revolutionary War debt, founding the first national bank -- as the patron saint of capitalism and social orderliness. But it is his manner, at once methodical and dashing, that comes to life in ''Alexander Hamilton,'' the generous and intelligent anthology of his writings, edited by Joanne B. Freeman, an assistant professor of history at Yale University. The reader finds him, at 17, calculating for his employer whether a shipment of undernourished mules is worth the cost of the pasturage needed to recuperate them, and describing pious humility in a hurricane with boyish glee: ''Where now, oh! vile worm, is all thy boasted fortitude and resolution?''

MaryPage
November 10, 2001 - 09:20 am
I have always felt John Adams was much maligned and misrepresented. He was not an aristocrat, but rather a simple farmer. He owned a brain and, breaking with family tradition, a college education. He spent most of his time thinking, and never learned the nefarious arts of diplomacy which a gentleman learns literally at his mother's knee. His was the direct approach. He seems to have believed you could plan what is the right thing to do, and then just do it. Simplistic? Yes, I will own to that charge. Over full of himself? Quite possibly. One important aspect of his character was his total inability to dissemble. All politicians must do this over and over again. He simply could not. While others were careful and sparing with their words, and busy building alliances so as to be personally protected by group cover, as opposed to being a lone target at the front, Adams never saw the dangers built in to his approach. He had not the slightest Machiavellian tendency. I believe the many quotes of his having been "mad" were not declarations of Adams' insanity, but rather gave voice to an opinion that he was committing political suicide over and over again with the blunt, outspoken things he said. It has been my observation that the more successful politicians have voiced only pretty and popular sentiments and written only pretty and empty words. They work hard at not being caught taking a definitive position, while building coalitions to boost their public popularity. Adams never, ever learned to do these things. He was like a quacking duck surrounded by silent wolves.

I sincerely do not believe he was a monarchist. He was a Republican (no such party then, he was a Federalist), and absolutely opposed to a true democracy. I think he was right. A true people's democracy rules strictly by majority vote, period. Oh, the dangers of that! This country would have fallen apart long, long ago if we had not been formed as and remained a Republic.

Louise H
November 10, 2001 - 09:25 am
JA was not a monarchist - he wanted a republic. But he would not be "politically correct" today. He felt that wise leaders were essential. He did not want an aristocracy by birth.

He was simple in his living. His home in Quincy (now) is not very big. I saw it maybe 30 yrs. ago but I was impressed by how ordinary it was. It actually is a lot like a big, comfortable farmhouse. I don't remember whether he actually visited Monticello, but I know he was surprised at the size and luxury of it. When Adams was in France, he was somewhat disapproving of the French - we can't forget he comes from Puritan stock - but he learned to like much about the country, the natural beauty, the beauty of the women (not always so natural) the food, the lovely architecture, etc. etc. He thouroughly enjoyed himself there.

He had a temper but did try to control it. Because he was a simple man, in appearance, he was not always appreciated for what was underneath that simplicity. But when he spoke, he radiated such honesty, and unpretentiousness, his audience usually became captivated by him.

If we are to start chapter 3 - I'll go back and re-read it today. I'm also reading Founding Brothers by Ellis, the bio. of Truman by McCullough, and I just received The Best Years (the Clinton years) by Haynes Johnson. Between the computer and the reading I have, and the writing I try to do, and the painting which has been sadly neglected, I'm afraid - I can't seem to keep up with everything. More later. Louise P.S. Jefferson doesn't come across very well in this book. Not because of the Sally Hemmings business. For one thing, he was behind a series of scurrilous articles written by a newpaper editor against Adams, during his campaign, I think it was. And at the same time, Jefferson wrote Adams commiserating with him re the abuse of these articles. Adams knew that Jefferson was behind them, but never mentioned it.

My opinion of the basic difference between the men is is: If both were standing at the edge of a field to be plowed, Jefferson would study the plow, and perhaps make sketches trying to devise a more efficient one, and Adams would go to the plow, pick up the reins, and plow the field. Louise
P. S. MaryP. You put it so well, so much better than I could - you have described him exactly, a good decent, educated, intelligent man, but absolutely unable to play the games that politicians play. It couldn't be said better than you said it.

Harold Arnold
November 10, 2001 - 09:25 am
Ella, I checked page 163 and the last sentence of the third paragraph is exactly as you wrote. My book was purchased on the first Wednesday in March so it was an early copy. You who have purchased your book later please check to see if it’s different. The sentence as quoted by Ella and how it appears in my Book is:
Jefferson was to remember Adams as “the Colossus of independence>”


If it is different in your copy please report!

The link to the house pictures worked on my machine. Try it this way; log on the home page, then click the “La Casita” link midway down the index page: Harold Arnolds Home Page

Jonhanton, thank you for the explanation for the travel going north. I did not catch that connection to the dinner with Washington on page 72. Thanks for clearing that up.

bekka
November 10, 2001 - 09:35 am
Hi all,

So far my thoughts are (this is open to change)

In portraying this man as the ultimate good guy to end good guys McCullough is way too one sided in favor of Adams. I appreciated the sentiment stated somewhere that this is an "autobiograpy" in the hands of a good author. (Lends a whole new meaning to the term "ghost writer.")

But, otoh and imo, Adams has been unfairly thrashed by the generations (monarchist, anti-Bill of Rights, etc) as a result of the animosity felt by those who took office later and the more "democratic" (fewer branches and generally less government) movements.

The bad rep that Adams has was based on "spin" from the times and their lack of awareness that a strong government does not translate automatically into monarchy. Just because an opposition person says you are a monarchist and that opposition takes office, doesn't make it so. In this case much depends on the specifics in the meaning of the term "monarchist."

But the McCullough tome is necessary. (lol) McCullough is very critical of Jefferson and Franklin and laudatory of Adams. He could have included a bit more information on the Alien and Sedition acts but that probably would not have served his purpose. (g) Nevertheless, it's what the anti-Adams folks focused almost entirely on. So we now have two sides of a president and have to put the two together ourselves cuz they're probably both right.

rambling on a Saturday morning, becky

MaryPage
November 10, 2001 - 09:37 am
My copy is as yours, Harold, except that the c in colossus is lower case.

Thank you for the compliment, Louise. I loved your picture of the 2 presidents at the field. Perfect!

TigerTom
November 10, 2001 - 10:31 am
Just finished reading the Rosenfeld article.



will the real John Adams please stand up!

ALF
November 10, 2001 - 12:00 pm
"Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened." - Billy Graham

Deems
November 10, 2001 - 12:53 pm
On p.127, Of Adams's speech before Congress on July 1, 1776, McCullough writes: "That it was the most powerful and important speech heard in the Congress since it first convened, and the greatest speech of Adams's life, there is no question."

Somewhere above, Ella called this sentence to our attention and remarked that no source was given for its correctness.

And I got to thinking. A sentence from the Declaration of Independence came to mind: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...." You know the rest. The part of the sentence that interests me is right at the beginning--What is a "self-evident truth"? It certainly wasn't "self-evident" to many people in many other parts of the world (and still isn't).

We are so familiar with that sentence that I don't think we see what a daring rhetorical move is made--those "truths" are assumed to be self-evident. There is no proof offered, no argument made; they are just THERE. If you think about it, there is absolutely nothing "self-evident" about the truths that follow. The language makes them self-evident.

I think that any historian caught up in the digesting of information from any time period is influenced, to a certain extent, by the language and rhetoric of that period. So let's not fault McCullough for stating some "truths" that he has come to believe are "self-evident."

~Maryal

Ella Gibbons
November 10, 2001 - 02:51 pm
MARYPAGE believes the many quotes of his having been "mad" were not declarations of Adams' insanity, but rather gave voice to an opinion that he was committing political suicide over and over again with the blunt, outspoken things he said.

WHAT DO THE REST OF YOU THINK ABOUT THIS STATEMENT? (I believe she is referring to the article written by Rosenfeld here, please read the complete text if you have not)

LOUISE stated once before that Adams did not want an aristocracy in building the new republic. However, JA was the one that recommended George Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and later our first president and also he asked (although this is debatable) Jefferson to write the Declaration. Both wealthy Virginian aristocrats. However, both were wise decisions as Virginia having a large delegation to the Continental Congress (due to their being a populous colony), he knew they could influence others.

Is this contrary to what MaryPage has said - that he was not a politician?

I loved that "PLOW" story, Louise - WONDERFUL!! So true! And, please, let's all try to stay together on the same chapter. If one person is in Chapter 7 and talking about events there, it's very confusing.

THANKS FOR THOSE WORDS, BECKY! Yes, we all have to draw our own conclusions from the Rosenfeld article (did you read the complete text? - I tried to make that page, which has the title of the article on it at the top, a clickable but couldn't do it - Why? the devil won't let me

HAHAH - TIGER TOM - WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? WE'VE MISSED YOU!

SO - ALF - WHAT STAND ARE YOU TAKING ON THIS ISSUE?

Excellent point, MARYAL! "I think that any historian caught up in the digesting of information from any time period is influenced, to a certain extent, by the language and rhetoric of that period. So let's not fault McCullough for stating some "truths" that he has come to believe are "self-evident."

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MARYAL'S statement in regards to McCullough? How far should we trust an author? A noted historian? One who has impeccable source notes?

Oh, my goodness, I must put some of these questions in the heading - will go do that now!

!

Ella Gibbons
November 10, 2001 - 03:41 pm
Harold, I sat waiting maybe 2 minutes for your home page to come up, then being an impatient person, I gave up - will try LATE some evening.

There are a few new questions in the heading. I left a couple there that need more discussion I think - these are just for when we run out of something to talk about - HAHAHAHA!

BaBi
November 10, 2001 - 04:32 pm
I appreciate all that MaryPage and Louise said in defense of JA. I agree with their views heartily. JA did not have the politician's instinct for self-preservation, and would have no use whatever for the politician's avoidance of any commitment. He was wholly committed. As for his preference for George Washington as general of the army, and for TJ to pen the constitution: (1) he surely made it plain that he highly regarded Washington for qualities that had nothing to do with is 'aristocratic' (?) background. (2) His recognition of TJ's facility with a pen, and of Virginia's influential place in the colonies hardly makes him a politician in the modern cynical sense. He would have had to be dumb not to recognize these facts and take them into consideration.

I seem to remember that the words "self-evident" were not used in the first; they were substituted in later drafts precisely for the reason that they were psychologically more powerful. ..Babi

Harold Arnold
November 10, 2001 - 06:16 pm
In chapter two and three we get a brief glimpse of the manner in which the revolutionary government functioned during the war. I sort of wish Mc McCullough had devoted more words to give specific information on the government during this period in more detail. I presume the Articles of Confederation were already in effect.

In the absence of specific detail we see a form of the British parliamentary system during the Continental Congresses with little or no independent executive authority . In Britain the king still had substantial executive power and could block an act of Parliament, but during the revolution there was no corresponding American authority. In its place the Americans seem to have experimented with a version of the British Parliamentary System, which combined legislative and executive authority in the Continental Congress. Certain members as committee heads were assigned specific executive tasks. JA as head of the Board of War appears to have functioned as Minister of War. In this capacity he was no back bencher writing the Articles of War from the similar British document that governed the Army and Navy and apparently generally managed things like the procurement of supplies and armament etc. I will say more about this when we get to the chapter on the Constitution on which Adams had great influence through his 1787 writing entitled, “A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America.” But more on this when we get to Chapter 7.

Deems
November 10, 2001 - 06:31 pm
I am either relearning or learning for the first time so much by reading this book. For example, maybe I once knew that John Hancock was the President of the Continental Congress, but I had forgotten it. Oddly, I remembered hearing the story--possibly just a legend--that he signed the Declaration in such a large hand so that George III could read it without his spectacles.

Still in Chapter 3, I am most interested in the discussion of slavery--or rather the section that Jefferson originally had in there blaming the Christian King George III for the evils of slavery. I knew that Jefferson had originally intended words against slavery but have never read the exact wording before.

The other section that fascinates me is the story of Abigail taking the children to Boston for smallpox innoculations--on her own initiative. Poor Nabby had pustules all over her body. Now that we are at war (again) and bioterrorism is a real threat, this section seemed especially poignant to me.

Finally, I am very angry with T. Jefferson for burning all his correspondence with his wife and hers to him. Think what a treasure it would be to have those letters.

Maryal

Ella Gibbons
November 11, 2001 - 08:08 am
THANK YOU MARYAL AND BABI!

"The idea (for vaccination against smallpox) had come from a slave belonging to Cotton Mather, an African named Onesimus, who said the practice was long established in Africa."

Wasn't that interesting and as Maryal said of great import to us today. When I was young you could not enter school unless you had the smallpox vaccination - what year did they stop that I wonder?

As for JA in this chapter, he was a busy man! President of the War Board, on the Committee for Spies (with Jefferson) whose job it was also to set up the Articles for War, worked on the Articles of Confederation, proposed a Military Academy, Head of the Committee of Treaties who acted upon Adams' plan not to include "entangling" alliances in any treaty (his fantastic foresight again), and I especially admired him for staying in Philly after the defeat of the Continental Army!

Jefferson does not come off well in this chapter. He left to go home after the defeat and blamed the King for slavery? Come on, Jefferson, how hypocritical as if the King bought those 200 slaves you owned and transported them to Monticella!

Many of these men who spoke against slavery owned slaves - even this young physician, Benjamin Rush, who one has to admire, owned a slave!

BUT ON JULY 2nd - THIS IS THE DAY - A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST AND INDEPENDENCE WAS DECLARED. WHAT A MOMENT IN HISTORY! I can get all teary-eyed just typing here.

AND IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE SIGHT OF GOD AND MAN.

That statement bothers me - does it anyone else? No nation should claim God is on their side.

Ann Alden
November 11, 2001 - 09:12 am
How would they know? If God was on their side? Its all in their perspective, isn't it?

MaryPage
November 11, 2001 - 09:13 am
Ella, you are what is known as a rare bird! All nations have declared God to be on their side in all things! Well, we belong to the same flock here. I have always felt it the worst possible affront to God to make such a declaration. In the mind of so many of our species, "God" is a tool to be utilized to achieve certain goals set up by mere men. It is an amusing spectacle when viewed from afar, but alas, we still live daily with the threat inherent in men who invent the intentions of God.

Ella Gibbons
November 11, 2001 - 10:44 am
In the mind of so many of our species, "God" is a tool to be utilized to achieve certain goals set up by mere men.

You say it so well, MaryPage.

What is your answer to Question #3 above?

I do believe they could have tried if only two colonies were objecting to it. Their slaves would, no doubt, have stayed where they were and worked for a mere pittance - where would they have gone as freemen?

However, they could no longer be sold, separated from their children and families - and their children! Ah, their children could have attended school, received an education which would have enabled them to get decent jobs, travel, learn.

History is full of these "if only's."

Ella Gibbons
November 11, 2001 - 10:56 am
Oh, I forgot, I did want to ask some knowledgeable person how the two oceans on either of us got their names? In colonial days, the Pacific was the South Sea, and here they are attempting to decide whether Congress should limit the boundaries of each state and Jefferson protests the right of Congress to decide for his state, thinking that it could someday stretch all the way westward to the ocean. WOW!!!

And their other problem at the moment is how to vote! An equal vote for each colony? 13 votes, or by voting in proportion to population, and of course you know who was in favor of that? The most populous colonies.

gotta run.....

Want to hear what you have to say about all this!

John Murphree
November 11, 2001 - 11:02 am
I am enjoying reading the various comments on the book and observations about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

I continue to read some each day and continue to enjoy it very much. I notice that the author DOES tell us about the foibles of John Adams.

As for Thomas Jefferson I think I already knew much more about him than I did about John Adams. It is interesting that for a long period Adams and Jefferson got along so very well but that later their relationships were not nearly so good.

I know we are supposed to talk about just the chapter we are on but I like to consider the over all impressions I get when reading rather than going back to so many specific details.

--- Papa John

Harold Arnold
November 11, 2001 - 11:31 am
Ella, remember also Abigail’s father, owned slaves even in Massachusetts. McCullough mentioned that Abigail inherited a slave servant girl when her father died. To her credit the slave was freed.

Ann Alden and Mary Page, do you remember the Bob Dylan 1960’s song, With God On Our Side. This was one of his lesser know early songs. The complete text is available from the link but a typical verse read:
When the Second World War--- Came to an end--- We forgave the Germans---And we were friends--- Though they murdered six million--- In the ovens they fried-- The Germans now too--- Have God on their side.


John, I think most of us came into this reading knowing more about TJ than JA. The way you describe their on, then off again relationship is very true, but we should not forget that later the switch was thrown back again to “on” and they were respected friends until the end of their lives.

Jonathan
November 11, 2001 - 02:28 pm
It is most interesting to read the posts following the bombshell of Rosenfeld's review of McCullough's hagiography. It left me shook up, wondering if we should remove, with all due respect, our hero from that monumental equestrian ensemble being planned. But surely Abigail gets to stay.

I've been so busy. Without time right now, to say anymore than that 'And it was justified in the sight of God and Man', seems self-evident to me.

Harold...I love your place. Can I make you an offer on it? Jazz included, of course.

Harold Arnold
November 11, 2001 - 04:18 pm
I think the greatest value of the Rosenfeld article to us right now is to take it as a REMINDER as we analyze the McCullough book that THE AUTHOR MAY BE overly prejudice in favor of JA. We should ask our selves as we read the book, based on the facts given in the book and as we understand them from other sources, was McCullough's judgement of JA (almost always favorable) justified? Opinion judgements, of course may differ. I think I know of at least one major area where JA's performance, might have been critized but was passed over by the author. I'll bring up this point when we get to the Chapter.

I will add that in being suspicious of the author, the Rosenfeld article really is not an issue. It is but one mans opinion and we have no real information on what prejudices he might harbor. We can read it for information just as we can and should read the favorable reviews in the N,Y. times and others. But as reviewers of the book it is our mission to be suspicious and formulate our own independent judgements. Let's do it!

bekka
November 11, 2001 - 05:22 pm
Yes, I do believe that McCullough has fallen a little bit in love with his subject. He is loathe to present any real wrongs in him. And if that's what he looks for when he researches then obviously Jefferson would be the wrong candidate. Jefferson has too many warts. (lol)

Also I think he chose Adams because the material on both would have been far too cumbersome. He gave Jefferson a lot of space anyway. It was probably hard to edit out all that juicy business about the expenses.

becky

Ella Gibbons
November 11, 2001 - 07:41 pm
Bob Dylan shook me up with this song: (thanks, Harold)

My name it is nothin' 
                 My age it means less 
                 The country I come from 
                 Is called the Midwest 
                 I's taught and brought up there 
                 The laws to abide 
                 And that land that I live in 
                 Has God on its side.


Oh the history books tell it They tell it so well The cavalries charged The Indians fell The cavalries charged The Indians died Oh the country was young With God on its side.


Oh the Spanish-American War had its day And the Civil War too Was soon laid away And the names of the heroes I's made to memorize With guns in their hands And God on their side.


Oh the First World War, boys It closed out its fate The reason for fighting I never got straight But I learned to accept it Accept it with pride For you don't count the dead When God's on your side.


When the Second World War Came to an end We forgave the Germans And we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now too Have God on their side.


I've learned to hate Russians All through my whole life If another war starts It's them we must fight To hate them and fear them To run and to hide And accept it all bravely With God on my side.

But now we got weapons Of the chemical dust If fire them we're forced to Then fire them we must One push of the button And a shot the world wide And you never ask questions When God's on your side.


In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this That Jesus Christ Was betrayed by a kiss But I can't think for you You'll have to decide Whether Judas Iscariot Had God on his side.


So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell The confusion I'm feelin' Ain't no tongue can tell The words fill my head And fall to the floor If God's on our side He'll stop the next war.

Jonathan
November 11, 2001 - 10:40 pm
or, God comes with patriotism, or something like that. Abigail tried to instil that idea into the boys.

Thanks for the suggestion, Ann A. America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the revolutionary election of 1800. What a title, given what we already know. I've just checked the library catalogue, and it's in. And so is Rosenfeld's American Aurora...The Suppressed History of Our Nations Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper that tried to report it. That's most of the title. Doesn't it sound interesting.

I can't seem to get his review, titled The Adams Tyranny, out of my mind. His criticisms, aimed at both McCullough and John Adams himself seem very harsh. About Adams: emotionally unbalanced, overbearing, hypercritical, pedantic, distant, and 'even worse'. These come along with what he finds B Franklin saying about Adams: 'absolutely out of his senses'. Jefferson: 'sometimes absolutely mad'. Madison: 'sometimes wholly out of his senses'. And Hamilton's 'liable to paroxysms of anger'. There seems to be a sameness to all of them, for whatever reason. Why? We're not told.

For the moment, though, I would like to suggest that Rosenfeld is helping his own case, in a not altogether honest way, by using the words of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, without citing time and occasion. Adams,too, could be brutally blunt. It comes with the political turf, the melee of revolutionary politics, at a time of a nation's birth, of writing constitutions, making them work, at street level, so to speak.

Rosenfeld's comments are a critical, historical summing up, by the looks of it. And he leaves us in no doubt about his conclusions, legitimately arrived at, presumably, as regards Adams' character and record. I'm impressed by what he has to say. Perhaps it will become even more significant later on. In the meantime, one has to wonder what more his book could tell us. I'll try to find out. Nice to find another book on a neglected President. Has anyone read The Passionate Sage by John Ellis. I've heard it has more to say about Adams' temper and excitability. He's certainly more complex than McCullough would have him. How interesting.

Jonathan

betty gregory
November 12, 2001 - 02:38 am
I think there's a difference between being political and being knowledgable about politics. I get the picture that JA did not waste much time "being political," as in choosing his words carefully. I also see him as intelligent about some things we might call politics, for one, seeing that July, 1776, was the right time for a Declaration of Independence. That may have been the case, as well, in his choice of first president.

On McCullough reporting only the good, I'm not sure I agree. Adams certainly doesn't come across as flawless. I wonder if some who fault McCullough are not taking his style into account. Maybe McCullough writes Adams' involvement as dedication and loyalty whereas someone else might write it as workoholism or obsession with getting things right/done. I can absolutely see others calling his incredible investment/attachment/determination "mad." Jefferson leaves the Continental Congress for a few days to attend a sick wife and Adams writes to him, "Get back here. You are needed." In his tunnel vision (thank goodness someone had it), he must have come across as a little tyrant some of the time. Finally, McCullough has something Hamilton and others did not.....letters to Abilgail and other sources. Just think how rare that is, to have those personal thoughts to add to the public man (even assuming that he knew the letters would one day be public).

betty

MaryPage
November 12, 2001 - 08:04 am
I think it would be extremely helpful if we had those quotations about ADAMS being "mad" in their complete context.

I have often had personal conversations like the following, and I'll bet you have also: Someone says: "Well, you told her not to attempt the drive all the way down there and back in this weather, but I called the house and she has left!" and I reply: "She's crazy! She's out of her mind!"

And I might well be speaking of someone close to me, someone I adore, and someone who is completely and totally sane, but just exhibiting at the moment what appears to me to be very poor judgment!

JOHN ADAMS was not insane. Neither was he your "normal man." For the latter we may well thank our Creator.

bekka
November 12, 2001 - 09:04 am
I think I stated earlier that although John Adams may well have been a hero (in the eyes of the US), but that doesn't make him a saint. Putting all the comments together I suspect he had some issues with tact and diplomacy, personal relationships may have suffered from his overbearing personality and workaholism. The nicest guys don't always make the best leaders. There is always a certain amount of animosity in politics. John Adams was not immune from these. Only George Washington was. (lol)

becky

MaryPage
November 12, 2001 - 09:35 am
The Mayor of New York City was hardly the most popular man in the world, nor did he receive good press, up until he proved himself a leader who could provide the most remarkable example in the midst of a disaster. Now he is an icon world-wide. Hey, he hasn't changed. We have simply seen another aspect of his total person.

bekka
November 12, 2001 - 10:39 am
Good example, MaryPage. If we were to study Mr. Giuliani a couple of hundred years from now, what would we believe, his own letters and journals or those of the opposition? Like you said, they may quite well be two aspects of the same personality. And Mr. G is one who is a hero but certainly not a saint. (lol)

Becky

Harold Arnold
November 12, 2001 - 12:08 pm
The word "mad" was quite commonly used on the 18th century to describe someone the author did not agree with, particularly if it involved an opinion of a political opponent. The fact that contemporaries used this word to describe JA should not be taken as an indication of clinical insanity.

I wish now I had read the Ellis biography of JA, “The Passionate Sage” or at least read more on JA himself. In preparation I read the Ells, Founding Brothers and “Understanding Thomas Jefferson” by E. M. Halliday. Perhaps it would been more helpful had I centered more on JA himself.

Ella Gibbons
November 12, 2001 - 12:44 pm
Wonderful, Jonathan, do get the books and if you have time while we are debating the truth of Adams' character, whether he is "mad" or just pedantic, and analyzing carefully McCullough's statements as Harold suggested, you can report back to us your evaluations of those authors you mentioned. We shall attempt to get at the truth as best we can.

Betty makes the point that "maybe McCullough writes Adams' involvement as dedication and loyalty whereas someone else might write it as workoholism or obsession with getting things right/done. I can absolutely see others calling his incredible investment/attachment/determination "mad."

That is quite possible, Betty, actually I've been married to an workaholic for years (retired now for 10) and they can get quite frustrated and vent their anger on those around them, when it is actually a symptom of overwork and being extremely tired.

Good example of extremes in characters, Becky and MaryPage - that of Mayor Guilani. A good man to have around when he is needed, true, and the country needed a workaholic at the time. John Adams was certainly that, according to McCullough.

HAROLD, I listened to the tape of Ellis' PASSIONATE SAGE, and, of course, you know that book was primarily on the life JA led in retirement. There wasn't anything in that book (that I recall) that was different from what we can find in McCullough's book - note that in McCullough's Bibliography he cites both of the Ellis books (American Sphinx and Passionate Sage), perhaps he used Ellis's material for this book.

Don't you think it is time to take off on that Atlantic voyage to FRANCE - a different location, possibly a different Adams? Let's go analyze this adventure and see what we find.

~BEGIN CHAPTER FOUR ~

Ella Gibbons
November 12, 2001 - 12:55 pm
Busy day today - all kinds of things going at once, but I just wanted to post this quickly: definition of a politician from the American Heritage Dictionary.

a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics; b. One who holds or seeks a political office; c. One who is interested in personal or partisan gain and other selfish interests; d. One skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.

John Adams was a politician, but the question remains was he a good one? In what respect - a, b, c, d?

williewoody
November 12, 2001 - 02:10 pm
Hi y'all ! After the great experience I had with the discussion on "Nothing Like it in the world", the story of the building of the transcontinental railroad, by historian Stephen Ambrose, I couldn't hardly wait for John Adams to start. History is my favorite subject and I read quite a bit of it. Have already read John Adams, and really enjoyed it.

Our second president has always been a sort of mystery to me . I was quite surprised to learn of his role in the Revolution as an emissary to European countries to raise money for the American colonies war against England. In fact it seems that is where he spent most of the period of the war.

I will have to re-scan the first four chapters to see what further comments I can come up with.

Ann Alden
November 12, 2001 - 03:51 pm
Hey, Williewoody! Good to see you again after our wonderful discussion of the railroads.

In McCullough's tome, I noticed that he quoted JA as saying that he was known to "become unstrung" when there was a bad thunder and lightning storm brewing outside. Do you think he might have had "ADHD" and no one noticed? Well, at least, hyper and wanting his "Home" to get free of Great Britain. So, he took on being a US founder? Just to keep himself busy and out of trouble?(just kidding!)

betty gregory
November 12, 2001 - 06:05 pm
A request, please. Could we take Harold's comment on the use of the word "mad" to heart (at the time, it was used informally, but did NOT mean insane), along with MaryPage's example of today's use of the similar word "crazy"? (She's driving in a hurricane. Is she CRAZY?!) Until we run across full paragraphs of more than one person accusing JA of mental insanity, could we put "mad" in quotation marks to show there are still questions about the word??

So, I'm requesting two things. Could we accept Harold's (1700s) informal use of the word and could we (please) use quotation marks around the word "mad." (I'd really hate for unfounded comments to lazily follow us around throughout the entire discussion...with our wondering at every turn if JA is off his rocker.) We don't all have to be in agreement, but I thought quotation marks will show there are unanswered questions and, therefore, include us all.


betty

Ella Gibbons
November 12, 2001 - 06:26 pm
YES, BETTY, YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN GRANTED (in fact, I went back to my post and put in the quotation marks) and I'm happy that you made us aware of that, particularly after Harold's post.

We will do that - everyone agreed?

But was he "mad" (haha) to embark on a 3,000 mile voyage on the North Atlantic in its most treacherous season with great risks to him and his son? (Personally, I think he was crazy) I'll quote a bit here:

"Captain Tucker knew what the Atlantic could deliver up in February; the chances of being hit by a northeaster and driven onto the shoals of Cape Cod, graveyard of ships; the sheer terror of winter storms at sea when freezing spray aloft could turn to ice so heavy as to cause a ship to capsize. Navigation, never a simple matter, became difficult in the extreme from a violently pitching deck and with a horizon distorted by breaking seas, or, in the absence of sun and stars, quite impossible."


I'll check to make sure I'm correct, but I think when asked of McCullough what he most admired about Adams he replied his courage in making this voyage. May be wrong, but will tell you later.

Welcome WillyWoody

betty gregory
November 12, 2001 - 06:33 pm
WillieWoody, WELCOME!! If you were saying that you thought this discussion was scheduled to begin Nov. 15, you're right!! It was! Don't make signs and picket, though, cause this isn't the only discussion that switched dates....if we picketed, we'd have to picket everybody and it would never end!!! It would go on and on and on....I think a Harry Potter type wizard zapped them all at a DL meeting, then zapped the calendar and paper days flew off into space...15 here, 60 there. They've all gone mad, if you ask me!

betty

Ella Gibbons
November 12, 2001 - 07:25 pm
Why, BETTY GREGORY! Mentioning any other wizard but our own BOOK WIZARD (whose acquaintance I believe you have recently made in quite a successful manner) here in the Books is unthinkable! Besides which, we never tell what goes on BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!

Here is the quote from David McCullough's interview mentioned in Post #178.

Of all the incidents and anecdotes you describe in the life of John Adams, which do you consider the most important?

His voyage across the Atlantic on the frigate Boston in 1778. With his ten-year-old son in tow Adams left Massachusetts and journeyed to France to assume his appointment as commissioner to the Court of King Louis XVI. It was the dead of winter, a dangerous time for an Atlantic crossing under the best of circumstances. It was also the midst of the war and British warships were lying off the coast waiting to capture anyone like him. He'd never been to sea before in his life. And he was going to a world he knew nothing about. He'd never in his life laid eyes on a King or Queen, or the Foreign Minister of a great power, and never set foot in a city of more than 30,000 people. He knew nothing of European politics or diplomacy and didn't speak a word of French-the language of diplomacy. And he had no money. How many other politicians, then or since then, would have done such a thing? And everything that could go wrong on the voyage did go wrong. Perhaps that is why it serves so well as the key to understanding Adams. It reveals much about his determination, his physical courage, and the connection that existed between him and his son. He considered that voyage a metaphor for his life and constantly referred to it in later years in his correspondence.

Deems
November 12, 2001 - 07:29 pm
that one person's COURAGE is another person's FOOLHARDINESS. I vote on the side of courage, and at least he has the sense to take one of the children with him. Poor Abigail had plenty to do.

Harold Arnold
November 12, 2001 - 09:32 pm
Williewoody, welcome! It’s good to have you with us again.

Today I don't think many diplomats would take their young children into a war zone on a small naval ship across a sea controlled by the strongest navy of the time. Very predictably they encountered an enemy ship fortunately a merchantman, not a ship of the line, commanded by lord Nelson or one of the other star RN captains of the day. JA's friend, the young First Lieutenant was killed in an accident firing one of the guns. John Q was lucky he was still around to become the 6th President!!

betty gregory
November 13, 2001 - 03:33 am
I agree, Maryal. There was something extraordinary in this man John Adams, who was ready to do whatever his country asked of him, regardless of personal comfort, convenience, fear, risk. In almost every way imaginable, he put his country first, even as the country was coming into being!

Good point, Harold. You put words to something I was having trouble expressing, that our current standards of child protection do not fit into that world of revolution, or even, possibly, (I think) into the rugged world of the colony before revolution. I thought it was probably an additional hardship on Abigail, though, Maryal, that JA took John Quincy with him to France. One less pair of hands to do the work at home. It tells us something about John Adams, though, that he wanted this educational opportunity for John Quincy. Am I wrong, or is this, too, something so different about this man, that he would think about his son's education at a time when most people would think, look, I've got enough to worry about without having to look after a child. John Quincy was a child, not an 18 year old who could look after himself. Sure, he may have been good company for JA, but first, he was a responsibility.

I can think of only two people I've known who made time to include children, for the benefit of those children, during really challenging, difficult times. Both were single mothers. One involved the mother's chemotherapy for breast cancer, divorce proceedings and decreasing grades at school for a bright teenage girl (who wanted to be a doctor). The mother said, "When summer starts [in 2 weeks?], I need you to keep track of all my questions to the doctors, to be my representative to ask the questions and write down the answers, and keep the files of the answers." The daughter was maybe 16, close to that. She was wonderful. She expanded the original job description, did research, copied articles for her mother AND THE DOCTORS, would whip out her notebook during a doctor's appointment and say, "Here are the 3 things you said you'd find out for us." Her mother said she was so serious and professional that the doctors didn't dare dismiss her. Each time I visited the mother during that summer, the daughter couldn't wait to show me "the files." The high point of her job, I think, and what was bragged about for months, was the unexpected phone call from the doctor who asked to speak to the daughter, gave an answer to a medical question, said he appreciated her administrative skills and that was the end of the call. The call was only to her. It was not that many years later that he was asked to supply a supplemental recommendation letter when she was applying to a medical school.

When the subject is good parenting, I always think of those two mothers. (The other mother did a joint project with a son to get his first car. They started the project when he was early teens and were ready to buy the car when he was 17. The difficulty/challenge for her was that her one-third matching funds end of the bargain was never easy.)

betty

Harold Arnold
November 13, 2001 - 09:05 am
Betty, while both of us are dismayed about JA's taking John Q, age 11 across, the North Atlantic in war time we have to admit that the educational opportunity the trip provided were outstanding. The education of children in 18th century America was often by apprenticing the child at an early age to a master to learn his trade. JA seems to have followed this plan with John Q. It was certainly an outstanding success. By the time he was in his mid teens he could speak French fluently and was a trusted aid to JA and in that capacity accompanied the US minister sent to Russia. I said in an earlier post and I will say it again, that by the time John Q got to Harvard he was better educated than most of his professors. That February 1778 North Atlantic crossing may indeed have made him President.

Isn't politics strange? Prior to last year JA and John Q had been the only Father/Son team to make it to the top.

One of the differenced between 1770’s North American colonists and at home Englishmen cited by Stephanie Grauman Wolf in her book, “As Various As Their Land” was the differing outlook toward their children. This author argued that in America the children were already more independent and the children were much more the center of their parent’s life than in England. The goal of parenthood was the advancement of the children.

A much more important difference that goes far toward explaining the sudden 1770’s determination on the part of so many Americans for Independence, was the different attitude Americans had developed toward their personal role in society and its governance. In Britain the great masses of people displayed no interest in or personal concern with their government. That was the concern of a small group from the aristocracy and upper class.

In America there was no real aristocratic class. I think it was the connection that every person had with the frontier where everyone great and small had a part in military defense and economic well-being. Whether he/she liked it or not every person was involved and participation was required from all. After almost two centuries of such exposure a significant part of the group felt personally involved and hence the move for Independence. In Britain it took another 60 years before the first timid steps toward popular democracy were taken with the first Reform Act passed by Parliament in the 1830’s. It would be 90 years before Britain was truly on its way to becoming a popular democratic state with the passage of the second act in the 1860’s.

TigerTom
November 13, 2001 - 12:11 pm
Don't be so certain that (American) Diplomats will or do not take their children in to Dangerous areas. Right now, we have diplomatics Corps people in all Muslim Countries with the exception of Iran. During Desert Storm our Mission in Baghdad was manned. True, all non essential personnel and families were evacuated but before that evacuation it was NO picnic. Serving in those posts one never knows when the baloon will go up. Foreign Service types take their families with them into very hazardous posts, expected of them. Sort of a way of saying "we are not worried." I and my family were in Pakistan right after the Burn out of the Embassy, it was touchy for about a year. We were also in India when Indira Ghandi was assisinated. Radio Moscow was screaming that it was the American and the Cia that had her killed. We didn't know if or when the mob was going to come over the wall after us. All one could do was go about life as if nothing mattered. There are Foreign Service people under the gun in many countries and they have their families with them, including children.

williewoody
November 13, 2001 - 12:54 pm
A straightforward answer to question #1 would be, I believe, that polititions are motivated by power, at all levels of government. In other words, they want power. IMHO John Adams was not a poltician. More likely he would be considered a statesman. I believe statesmen are motivaded by the desire to serve the people. Adams was a fierce patriot and service to his country and its people was his primary motivation.

Frankly, I don't believe he was "mad" or "crazy". To me it took a lot of "guts" to take his son and sail away in a frail vessel for Europe at the height of the worst season to cross the north Atlantic.

BaBi
November 13, 2001 - 03:47 pm
Regarding the age of John Quincey, we should remember that "manhood" came at an earlier age in those days. Apprenticeship began quite young, as someone mentiond earlier (sorry, I didn't note who), and "young men" were matriculating at Harvard at 13 and 14.

On Harold's comment that we have no "true" aristocracy, I recall Jefferson's words: "I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." I would be happy to acknowledge such an aristocracy as a "true" one, but virtue doesn't command the respect today it once did. Too many people now tend to regard themselves as "upper class", based on the virtues, talents, ...and money....earned by some ancestor. As Thomas Paine noted, "virtue is not hereditary". ..Babi

jane
November 13, 2001 - 07:12 pm
bekka: You can delete the posts and put them where they're appropriate.

Jonathan
November 13, 2001 - 09:28 pm
Chapter 4 makes interesting reading; but imo there are some underlying issues that we should keep in mind. The first three chapters are entirely convincing that John Adams was the right man in the right place at the right time. Even if Jefferson never said that Adams was 'the colossus of Independence', McCullough, imo, was justified, on the evidence, in believing that Jefferson MIGHT have remembered Adams that way.

So it has always surprised me that, with so much left to be done at home, Adams, with all his abilities, would spend the next eight years in Europe. And after that another eight years in the siberia of American politics...the Vice-Presidency. Now I'm wondering: were there forces at work, determined to keep him out of the way? McCullough has him 'low in spirits, feeling misjudged and unappreciated', 148; quotes him as saying 'This country knows not, and never can know, the torments I have endured for its sake' 148. And again '...there is no encouragement to be faithful. Neither profit, nor honor, nor applause...' 160.

It's surprising, too, to see the direction the discussion took at one point. I came to the book eager to share, certainly very sympathetic with, McCullough's enthusiasm. How timely to attempt the rehabilitation of a much-maligned president. Being asked to consider a revision of history isn't that far out, either, as we have been told. But when it comes to be a discussion on the nature of madness...what a strange twist...instead of an investigation into the reasons for his political 'exile'.

'Ungrateful nation...all villains'. Someone in the book says that, I believe. I don't remember who. Perhaps it was Abigail. Remarkable that Abigail remained so faithful and loving, albeit from a distance much of the time. Or was it Adams' saying to Benjamin Rush in Congress, in 1776, that success for America would come only 'if we fear God and repent of our sins', p160, which caused some to doubt his political resiliency? And wish him somewhere else?

For a slight digression I would like to pass along some personal impressions of our strange new world of heightened security and frightening sensitizations. I talked with my sister, just back from a ship's cruise with her husband of two years. She's seventy-nine. He's eighty-nine. They flew to Fort Lauderdale from Buffalo, and then sailed off to a rendezvous with Hurricane Michelle, coming back from that, as she put it, with only an impaired sense of balance. What was more unsettling for her was giving up a scissors, part of her needle-and-thread kit, before boarding the plane. Luckily neither popped a button along the way. Compare that with my experience a week or so after Sept 11th, when I crossed the border to the U.S., heading for the hills. I had with me, in plain view, my alpenstock, my walking stick, big enough to have surprised even Teddy Roosevelt. The border guard glanced at it, expressed some envy, and sent me on my way, with a smile!

Jonathan, the happy wanderer

bekka
November 14, 2001 - 06:49 am
Hi,

Imo, Adams' eight years in Europe was certainly not a time of exile. With the US in such desperate straights for money and support, seeking (and finding) that in Europe was the best place for him. He was certainly no military general. I doubt any other than the Loyalist camp was acting to keep Adams out of the way at that point.

As to the Vice Presidency in Washington's day, who could have known before hand that the position would be such an empty place? There had never been a VP before! As it turned out, I would regard it more of a training camp for the Presidency than a siberia.

As to Abigail, sounds like wifely comments of support to me.

becky

Louise H
November 14, 2001 - 08:10 am
good morning, I don't have time to read the posts - but I did read what Ella said that while JA did not want an aristocracy in this country, he supported Washington for President, agreed with the Virginia aristocrats on some issues, etc.

JA did not want an HERIDITARY aristocracy, as in England. He did not want a man to be in a position of political or military power, as in members of the House of Lords, Minister for this or that, Ambassador for this country or that solely because he was the son of the 7th Earl of Whatever. He recognized and actually approved of an "aristocracy" of successful men, who had advanced themselves in the world by intellect and labor. He felt this level of citizen would be necessary to keep a check on the lower levels, because they would be wiser and more experienced and likely would have better judgement in financial and politican matters than say, an uneducated dock worker. But they, or their immediate ancestors had worked to achieve their wealth and position - and if they lost their money or land, they would immediately lose their status, for all practical purposes.

But he had no illusions as to the perfectability of humans in general. He did not believe it could be done. So he strongly supported a lower house of Representatives to look out for the interests of the "ordinary" citizen, and to see that the great mass of the population was not exploited by the few at the top.

Incidentally, I don't remember if the book has this episode in it - it is in another wonderful book, and it reflects JA's thinking. Somewhere in the late 1600s or early 1700s, a nobleman in England wrote to the head of the Massachusetts Bay ruling body - don't remember the names involved now. He planned to move to Mass.and wanted to get a few things straight. He was expecting to be given a large area of land, and to assume a leadership position in the govt. of the community, et. He listed a number of requirements before he would move to Boston - the privileges he expected to be extended to a person of his noble background.

The ruling council in Boston were dismayed - they didn't want him, of course, and wrote him a curteous letter, thanking him for his thought of them, but saying their community, frankly, didn't want the aristocracy - they were made up of farmers, shopkeepers, skilled laborors of all kinds, etc. and they did not want any nobles trying to rule them. JA reflected this point of view. He had respect for the man who succeeded on his own, who was an educated man. But no nobles. Louise

Ella Gibbons
November 14, 2001 - 08:15 am
After being away all day yesterday, it was with great relish that I read all your posts this morning and it is clear you have given thought to the ideas in the book and the ideas expressed by the other participants here - and I THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

I hardly know where to begin…but wanted to tell HAROLD what a great post he made - good viewpoints describing the differing attitudes the rebels had adopted since leaving the mother country and a bit of history of England that some of us may have forgotten - who can keep remember it all unless you stop for a refreshment now and then. Am so happy you are here as a Discussion Leader with your particular knowledge of history. Harold, as you all know, is the DL for the History General Discussion.

And several of you, BETTY, MARYAL and MARYPAGE, have expressed concern in one way or another for Abigail at this point in her life, seeing her husband and oldest child (and it seems to me the dearest in many respects) sail away on a perilous journey to England, knowing full well it may be years before she saw them again! We haven't discussed Abigail and her "thousand fears" - although it is evident in reading her letters that she, as MARYPAGE stated "agreed with him, matched his passion for this goal, and was with him every step of the way.

Over and over in this book we will read that John Adams needs Abigail beside him, to steady him - "I can do nothing without you" he was to tell her one way or another, time and again, and always from the heart. How difficult must have been this parting.




TIGER TOM! Indeed, yes, we do forget our embassies and thank you so much for reminding us that:

Foreign Service types take their families with them into very hazardous posts, expected of them. Sort of a way of saying "we are not worried……..There are Foreign Service people under the gun in many countries and they have their families with them, including children.


Your experiences must have been very frightening to you and your children - how thankful you must have been so many times to see our country again! Where did the Embassy children go to school when in such countries? How long do you stay before you get a leave to come home? Are you then posted to another embassy? How many in the Embassies know the language of the country they are appointed to? I know so little about the Foreign Service - I could ask you a million questions - why not write a book ? Is there one on the market about the Foreign Service and experiences encountered?

I remember reading a little of Norman Schwartzkopf's history somewhere and I think his father was in a Middle East country at one time in the Foreign Service and took Norman with him, I hope I'm getting this right - maybe I had better stop here and look this up in a search engine. But thank you for your comments.

And I read this from WilllieWoody, great assessment of John Adams:

"he would be considered a statesman. I believe statesmen are motivaded by the desire to serve the people.


A STATESMAN! Yes, I agree, do all of you? Certainly that was his greatest motivation to serve his country.




Another great quote brought to the table by BABI! I didn't know Jefferson said this: "I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." But I like that he did - and you think we have very few people today who have these qualities? Can't you think of anyone? OH!


JONATHAN! Now you have us questioning Adams again? Just when we were all beginning to admire this man for putting his life in danger for his country's sake? I'll repeat one of your statements: - "So it has always surprised me that, with so much left to be done at home, Adams, with all his abilities, would spend the next eight years in Europe."

And BECKY states that "with the US in such desperate straights for money and support, seeking (and finding) that in Europe was the best place for him." I agree, Becky.

And Jonathan is even advocating the suspicion there could be a conspiracy when he asks: "Now I'm wondering: were there forces at work, determined to keep him out of the way?

Any opinions?

Besides popping in here with another controversy - as if there weren't enough excitement here to keep us all on our toes - you tell us you are letting your sister of a certain age roam the high seas in the wake of a hurricane and being stripped-searched by security forces? While you are safely wandering around borders being smiled at by the guards? Hahaha - loved that "aside."

I want to know what you all think of Benjamin Franklin as pictured by JA in this chapter - a Benjamin Franklin who likes the women and is so charming (that they perch on his lap!) and lives in such splendor. I'm going to search the web for more information about him, but were you all surprised at Adams' change in attitude toward this man of science that he had so admired for years? Is his age an adequate excuse?

More later……..ella

Ella Gibbons
November 14, 2001 - 08:53 am
HELLO, LOUISE! I think we were posting together. Thanks for that great post and, no, I don't remember that incident about the aristocrat from England wanting to move to Boston. But I certainly liked this and I think we all agree with you that: "JA did not want an HERIDITARY aristocracy, as in England. He did not want a man to be in a position of political or military power, as in members of the House of Lords, Minister for this or that, Ambassador for this country or that solely because he was the son of the 7th Earl of Whatever

Harold Arnold
November 14, 2001 - 10:32 am
Jonathan makes some good points and asks some good questions in message #277. I too can’t see where JA’s 8 years in Europe were outstandingly productive. This would seem particularly true of the first year the time covered by Chapter 4 our current discussion chapter. Though as we will see in subsequent chapters JA’s diplomacy bore greater fruit later, I see little cause to justify McCullough’s statement (Page 209) that “much was accomplished” during his first year in Paris.

The answer to Jonathan’s question asking why JA was sent to Paris may well lie in the power structure in the Continental Congress at the time. Actually McCullough has not told us much about the organization of the government at Philadelphia. I observed in an earlier post that it appeared to be a version of the Parliamentary system with very weak executive authority, which seems to have been centered in Congressional Committees and their Chairmen. Earlier JA as Chairman of the “Board of War seems to have been tantamount to a Minister of War managing the civil administration of the revolutionary army. I don’t see where McCullough has given us enough information on the happenings in Congress that led to sending JA to France for us to decide why the appointment was made. I agree the assignment may well have been the scheme of political opponents to get him out of the country for their political reasons. They simply pushed through the appointment resolution in Congress under the guise of a promotion.

When Adams arrived in Paris the French Alliance Treaty and already been signed. The work of the 3-man American delegation (Benjamin Franklin, Arthur Lee and JA) became one of keeping the French government actively engaged in specific support projects. McCullough spends much time detailing the work of the delegation particularly the relationship of Franklin and Adams. Initially based on prior work together JA had great respect for Franklin. Mc McCullough details how this close relationship deteriorated. McCullough on page 209 tells us details of the different views of Franklin and JA on how to promote the American cause with the French
Franklin’s concept of diplomacy was to ask for nothing that Vergenes (the French Foreign Minister) would not give, be grateful for whatever the French provided, and remain ever accommodating and patient.


But he (Adams) was apprehensive of too much diffidence. He worried about the effect in the long run, as he explained to Roger Sherman in a letter he appears never to have sent. "There is a danger that the American People and their representatives in Congress may have too much timidity in their conduct toward this power, and that your ministers here may have too much diffidence of themselves and too much compliance for the Court." Specifically he warned of "excessive attention to what the French thought, what France wanted, and too much French influence in our deliberations."


But McCullough provides no information to support the fact that the JA approach would have worked better than Franklin’s. On the contrary JA did not make a strong impression on the French based on what McCullough tells us in this and subsequent chapters. On the other hand Ben Franklin did make a good impression on the court and his methods had resulted in the alliance that after a few years brought the victory that created an Independent United States. The French Alliance arguably was the key that made the American victory possible. Perhaps Ben Franklin is a founding father who awaits rediscovery?.

JA made a brief return to American in August of 1789 after Franklin was appointed sole American minister to France. He worked on a new Massachusetts constitution and authored the draft providing for a bicameral legislature and an independent judiciary. Quite promptly, however, in October 1789 Congress again sent him to Europe. The nature of his assignment was to have him in Europe ready when the time came to negotiate a final peace treaty with England. The yet premature timing of this appointment might again suggest that political forces in the Congress were again determined to keep him at a distance, but this point was not explored in the book.

This is the area I previously mentioned where a charge that McCullough unduly praised JA’s contribution, is arguably justified.

Harold Arnold
November 14, 2001 - 10:59 am
Abigail during the period now under discussions seems to have taken over active management of the Braintree homestead. I even remember mention in the book that she actually made speculative purchases of land on her own during this period. Only rarely does she lapse into the character of a typical 18th century housewife with statements in letters to JA such as “How lonely are my days.” How solitary are my nights” (page 216). And without suggestion of impropriety, I do note she did seem to enjoy her dinner with the French Officers aboard the French flagship at Boston, and she was not above carrying on a mildly flirtatious correspondence with James Lovell. Also McCullough notes correspondence between Abigail and other men including Thomas Jefferson on page 217. In any case I do not think JA was ever in much danger of receiving a “Dear John” letter from Abigail during the several years that he was in Europe without Abigail at his side.

TigerTom
November 14, 2001 - 11:27 am
Ella,



We stayed in a country on the average of two (2) years; had six weeks home leave to get new training and re-Americanized; then on to a new post (Embassy, Consulate General, Consulate, Mission, or Legation, each was a different level of representation) Kids would attend either an American School or an International School. both usually were staffed by American Teachers and was funded by the U.S. government. In addition to the American Children the children of almost all of the other diplomatic missions in country also attened these schools. they did because if was a platform for entry to an American College and the level of teaching was quite high. Teaching jobs in American Scools overseas had been the most sought after and the most desirable jobs in the Profession (don't know about now) the American School in the Hague Holland was considered on the level equal to the best Prep Schools in the U.S. because of the quality of its teachers and its curiculum. Location of the schools depended on availability of sites. In Pakistan the Embassy and the School were about twelve (12) miles apart. The School was located on the outskirts of the city. When the Burnout occcured people working in the Embassy were in the Vault for protection, their children were in the school miles away. NO one knew much of what was going on at the School. there was a radio link but there was so much confusion that the people at the School didn't use it. Imagine those parents, with a mob outside the embassy calling for their blood, Setting fire to everything, knowing that their children were so far away and in danger and their was nothing they could do about it but hope and pray. this type of situation is NOT unusual in many countries. Kids take it in stride. the service tries to educate most of the FSO's, at least, in the language of the host country. that is an ongoing study an FSO goes to language school for a year or two before arriving at post and constantly has lessons during the tour of duty. However, some the languages take a long time to learn even the basics. In addition many of the people trying to learn the language are in their mid-thities, not the ideal time to take up a new language unless one has a talent for languages. Practicing the language can be difficult if one works all day in the Embassy speaking English. Also, in many countries the natives want to practice their English and will refuse to speak the local language. The Russians did it right. A Russian Officer was assigned to an area and that was the area he/she stayed in. The Russian attended language school for many years before arriving at post. the American Fso might only spend one tour in an area and then move on to a different Continent and different post where he/she was required to learn ANOTHER language, if possible.
Write a book about the F.S.? there have been some written. None of them "Expose's" I would hate to tell you of some of the things I witnessed in the F.S. it would make you cry.

Tiger tom

Ann Alden
November 14, 2001 - 12:57 pm
And I quote again, from "America Afire" and John Adams own words,

"I will swim or sink, live or die, survive or perish with my country." Not Massachusetts, not New England, but "my country." He held nothing back. The years in Congress meant the sacrifice of his practice and income, a heavy burden for a man with a family. Even heavier were the long periods of separation from Abigail, whom he addressed as his "Dear Friend" in letters that would arrive in the post rider's bag or a sailing vellel weeks after they were written. The two were virtually in separate worlds, she managing the children and the farm alone in the confusion and upheaval of revolution and he, except for brief leaves of absence, consumed by the relentless grind of duty.

Did his finatical love of his country mean he was slightly crazy? Maybe

BaBi
November 14, 2001 - 03:39 pm
J.A.was not the only one expressing gloom and disappointment in some of the new nation's leadership. Another quote from T.J., in his notes on the State of Virginia: "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." I would be curious to know exactly what gave rise to that note. All I have is the quote itself.

In line with the story of the noble who expected special privileges to move to Massachusetts, I have a more recent one. This story is of a young man from Boston, applying for a position with a large California firm some 40 years ago. On checking his references, the firm received from a Boston reference a letter extolling the young man's family connections. The family went back to revolutionary days, had a number of notable men in it's history, and was very much top-rank in Boston.

The California firm was not impressed. They replied that the information supplied was not what they needed, as they were not proposing to use the young man for breeding purposes! ...Babi

williewoody
November 14, 2001 - 05:26 pm
ANN ALDEN: No! I cannot agree that because a man is devoted to service for his country, which seemingly is his entire devotion, that he is crazy. There is no question that he was deeply devoted to Abigail. How many children did they have? All of whom he loved greatly. I hope you are not saying that every man that loves his work is crazy? I certainly hope that is not true today when our very future as a nation is dependant upon men and women who are devoted to the defence of all of us from the terrorist of today as our nation was 200 years ago on men and women like John and Abigail Adams.

Ella Gibbons
November 14, 2001 - 06:28 pm
Hello, Ann, I will certainly agree that JA was consumed with his duty to his country and, together with all these patriots, were determined to succeed against heavy odds.

FUNNY STORY, BABI - we need a bit of levity in this very serious discussion and thanks for that!

I'm sure, WILLIEWOODY, that Ann agrees with you that JA loved his family dearly - she has the book of the letters that the two wrote to each other during all the years of their absences and has been ever so kind to quote from them now and then.

Today I picked up two volumes of books on Benjamin Franklin and there is no way I can get these two large books read and at the same time participate in this discussion, but I will read the chapters in each about Franklin's years in Paris with JA.

The first book is THE FIRST AMERICAN by H.W. Brand (the book Jonathan mentioned to me). Harold, the author is a professor of history at Texas A&M and lives in Austin, Texas - isn't that your hometown? AHEM! In skimming just the first few pages of this book I have learned much that was not included in McCullough's book; however, we cannot expect McCullough to write the complete history of the Revolutionary War in one volume about John Adams.

Chapter 23 begins with this statement. From the start of the war Franklin and other American leaders had recognized that their success might well hinge on the attitude of other European countries, especially France, toward the conflict. Four times in the last eighty years France had fought against Britain; a fifth time might free America from London's grasp.

Franklin had many friends in France and ascertained from various sources that France would help monetarily with a small sum, but refused to plunge deeper until the Americans proved their willingness and ability to see their task to its end.

Thus the Americans were in a cruel trap - "they could not win without French backing, but they could not gain French backing without showing they could win. The Congress, desperate, directed Franklin to Paris." His purpose (with other members of a commission) was to obtain arms and an alliance and, consequently, Franklin also endured a trip across the Atlantic on a wintry sea (Nov.-Dec. 1776) on the same perilous voyage that JA was to make a couple of months later, arriving in Paris Dec. 21, 1776.

Interesting that, isn't it? Each author of a biography seems to believe that his subject is the greatest, the only true hero of the Revolution.

-more later

betty gregory
November 15, 2001 - 02:01 am
Three days ago, I posted this.....

"WillieWoody, WELCOME!! If you were saying that you thought this discussion was scheduled to begin Nov. 15, you're right!! It was! Don't make signs and picket, though, cause this isn't the only discussion that switched dates....if we picketed, we'd have to picket everybody and it would never end!!! It would go on and on and on....I think a Harry Potter type wizard zapped them all at a DL meeting, then zapped the calendar and paper days flew off into space...15 here, 60 there. They've all gone mad, if you ask me!"

MaryPage answered my post, guessing that there was frustration under my joking (oops, she knows me too well). I can't quote from her post because she deleted it. Turns out (as I remember from her post), that her frustration from the changed start dates on two major discussions, this one and Story of Civilization, is similar to mine, or worse. These two books are HUGE, I know, but it upsets me that you (MaryPage) feel like "throwing in the towel" on one of them. I do remember that part.

Also, I'm so embarrassed that it took me several days to get back in here to say I'm sorry you're having such a tough time of it. Dedicated historian that you are, I know you read every word and one is either prepared or unprepared, no middle ground. Right now, I'm only able to do the John Adams reading and am on the edges of the Civilization discussion, hating that I can't do the reading. I hope you don't have to throw in the towel on either discussion. I don't want to miss out on your uncanny clarity of perception or how clearly you express it. We need you in this discussion!! Really! Please don't leave us!


betty

Louise H
November 15, 2001 - 08:36 am
ELLA, I never saw that quote about Jefferson, but I think it expresses JA's views very well. He did believe in a natural aristocracy which grows from talents and deeds. And he believed it was natural that these people would be "leaders" of the great masses, in terms of gentle direction, I guess. He felt they could be more objective in making judgements, altho I think time has shown us this is not the case. He was a man of his time, and did not have the advantage of 200 or so additional years of history. Louise

Ella Gibbons
November 15, 2001 - 09:33 am
LOUISE - thanks for your post! We all agree, I think that JA "was a man of his time, and did not have the advantage of 200 or so additional years of history." That is an important point to keep in mind - we should not judge people in the context of today's standards. As Harold stated (I think it was Harold) the language was different in those days and the word "mad" might very well have meant something different in those days. It might have meant that the person was obsessed with an idea and not insane.

Have you noticed the new questions in the heading? Several of you wondered why John Adams, an important figure in the Continental Congress, head of the War Board, was sent to Paris where he spent the duration of the war.

Why was he considered the best to be sent as he didn't speak a word of French and, indeed, at the very beginning of Chapter Four he expresses this heartfelt emotion: I CANNOT BUT WISH I WERE BETTER QUALIFIED

Now in reading the Brand book (quoted above) Benjamin Franklin could speak French, had many friends in France, and was the best qualified person to send. Here we have Franklin, Adams and Arthur Lee attempting to secure loans from France and none of them are getting along very well personally. And they are surrounded by spies.

McCullough spends much time talking about these spies which in my opinion is hardly worth the time and print! I'll leave it to your good judgment if anything was gained by writing all that.

Even though JA considers Franklin a complete waste (198) he does write to his cousin, Samuel Adams, to say that one commissioner, Franklin, would be quite enough and that he and Arthur Lee were superflouous.

I agree - when money was very tight in the colonies, why did they need to send 3 commissioners to Paris?

And where are the colonies getting the little money they have? They have no government to initiate taxes - do the colonies themselves have a means of taxation? It's a mystery to me.

Will await your astute messages as I love your comments on the book and on John Adams and his times - the birth of our nation. Which this morning we can be very proud of as the news in Afghanistan is encouraging. We have kept our cool throughout I think.

Ella Gibbons
November 15, 2001 - 09:58 am
As I was just starting the treadmill, my daily exercise, I chuckled to myself wondering what our founding fathers would have thought of the word I just used - "cool."

But we all understand don't we?

BaBi
November 15, 2001 - 12:41 pm
Aha! I have finally located my copy of B.Franklin's autobiography. Only to find, to my dismay, that it ends around 1757. No wondrous insights to be found there on the activities of the commissioners in Paris.

Why John Adams was sent to Paris is something of a puzzler, except that the colonies were desperately in need of aid of all kinds. While Adams did not speak French,there were other Americans there who could do that. Adams had proved that he could generally get things done, so perhaps he was wanted to be the 'mover and shaker' behind the scenes. Pure guess. ...babi

Deems
November 15, 2001 - 02:27 pm
I haven't yet finished Chapter 4, but I think I understand Adams's ambivalence about France. He was attracted to the wonders of Parisian culture, the comforts, the beauties, but at the same time he saw the problems in too much comfort and pleasantness. McCullough says that this was not so much a result of his Puritan heritage as "the classic Roman stoic emphasis on simplicity and the view that that decadence inevitable followed luxury, age-old themes replete in the writings of his favorite Romans."

Makes sense to me. I can also understand Adams's illateaseness with Franklin who gets to embrace and be embraced by those lovely Parisian ladies: "Franklin, he noted, had the enviable privilege, because of his advanced age, to embrace the ladies as much as he pleased and to be 'perpetually' embraced by them in return" (193).

And meanwhile, young John Quincy is making rapid advances in French. Nothing like total immersion in a culture......

more later, as Ella would say

Ella Gibbons
November 15, 2001 - 03:19 pm
We are all guessing, BABI, because McCullough doesn't tell us the answers, but your guess sounds very good to me - he was a mover and shaker in Philadelphia.

Hi, MARYAL, are you saying JA was jealous of this adorable old decadent Benjamin Franklin, whom the ladies adored? Hahaha - might have been true - poor JA came to Paris from a New England rigid and hard-working farm family with Puritan values and the ""the classic Roman stoic emphasis on simplicity."

Thank you so much BABI and MARYAL for your posts. Fun to read and now I want to address someone I owe an apology to……

"TIGER TOM - I have taken too much time to answer your splendid post of Nov. 14 (#283). What experiences you have had! Are you now retired and what motivated you to join the Foreign Service? The Pakistan incident (alone) would make a great book - do write it, it could be a memoir and you might become famous, wealthy - all that good stuff! Or are you sworn to secrecy when you join the Foreign Service?

I have been searching for a biography of someone who has been in the Foreign Service. One must search under the name of the Diplomatic and Consular Service, it seems, and I found one and wondered if you were familiar with it. The author is E.G.Ruoff and the title is "Making a Difference: an American family in Pakistan, France, Vietnam, Laos, Turkey, Mali. It was published in 1997 - recent enough that it should not be outdated - I have reserved it at my Library and will take a look to see if it might make a good discussion. This is something we all would like to know about I think. At least, Harold and I would be there if you would take the leadership (the DL) of the discussion. If you can find another one, please do so.

The Russians, as you noted, do seem to have the right plan. Why doesn't the U.S. change their ways - too ingrained in the system is it? Are we that inflexible? I was amused when you said that " in many countries the natives want to practice their English and will refuse to speak the local language." On a trip to Costa Rica sometime ago, we found that to be true also.

I attempted to find out something about Norman Schwarzkopf on the Internet; there is much about this Desert Storm hero but little about his life before that. He has written a book - but I can't remember if I read his autobiography or something else. However I found a short paragraph at this site: http://www.usdreams.com/Schwarzkopf.html and this paragraph states that he did spend time overseas with his family.

Throughout his youth, the teachings from both his mother and father were instrumental in shaping his strong character. He was also fortunate to live abroad with his family in his teenage years which allowed him to experience many different nationalities, cultures and ethnic backgrounds.


His father is famous for the Lindbergh kidnapping case; I believe he was the police commissioner of NYC at the time and very involved in that tragedy that captured the attention of the whole nation.

Thank you so very much for answering all my questions and I hope we can find a book that all would enjoy reading and discussing.

AND NOW BACK TO JOHN ADAMS......

Roslyn Stempel
November 15, 2001 - 04:25 pm
I'm somewhat behind in the reading and since I can't possibly approach the erudition of all the conributors I haven't any comments about the content or historic background of this book. My admiration of the Adamses stems from earlier readings of the couple and my continuing sense of awe at the vision, courage, and perseverance of these amazing colonists who dared to form our nation.
In terms of the book itself, I must say that I miss the graphic aids one might ordinarily expect to find in a work that covers such a vast area and contains so much detail. I refer to the subheads, marginal heads, running heads at the top or bottom of pages, chronology, and other informative pointers that might make it easier for an ill-informed reader to stay on her feet. I'll have to infer that most of you always know where you are in this adventure, and that the date, time, and progress of the nation are immediately clear to you throughout.. I enjoy the lucid formality of Adams's prose and the faintly homespun quality of Abigail's. One could hardly fail to perceive McCullough's partiality to Adams or his subtle undermiining of Jefferson, Jefferson-bashing of course having been in fashion since "American Sphinx" appeared a few years ago.

Ros

Harold Arnold
November 15, 2001 - 04:45 pm
Regarding the idea of a “Natural Aristocracy who derive their position of leadership and respect from their ability. Does such a “Natural Aristocracy” exist in our society today? Do our many business and industry CEO’s; professional people such as doctors, lawyers (ug, that’s a hard one), and computer programmers; intellectuals including the likes of college professors and scientists; artists, musicians, actors, newspaper and magazine editors, etc qualify as members of our 21st century aristocracy? Would you admit political leaders to this noble group; the president, members of congress and the cabinet; Governors, legislators, etc; Mayors of cities and their councilmen?

Are these the members of our present day “Natural Aristocracy?”

Ba Bi in message #292 discusses the reasons why JA was appointed to Paris emphasizing the importance of his reputation for getting his projects done. Yesterday I raised the question of possible political reasons for the foreign appointment. Consider the following:

But there was already a doer in Paris named Ben Franklin, and by the time JA got to Paris the principle task had been accomplished by him. The French Alliance had already been signed. Do you rule out the alternate theory that I voiced yesterday that there were forces in Congress that wanted him away from Philadelphia? What better way than to assign him to a post in Europe? `

The truth is Franklin seems to have understood the French better than JA. He got along very well with the French with his low-key approach. JA on the other hand favored a more positive pushy approach that did not go over well with the French.. JA recognized the fact that there were too many representatives in the American team in Paris and Congress corrected this within a year after JA arrived by appointing Franklin the sole American representative. Shortly afterwards JA returned to America, but within a few months he was quickly reappointed to Europe to negotiate a peace treaty- a premature appointment since the end of the war was not in sight when the appointment was made. JA stayed in Paris and in 1782 found hiself better at negotiating with the British than he had been earlier negotiating with the French. The treaty of Paris ending the war gave the new nation just about everything they wanted.

I wish McCullough had considered this possibility in the book by at least giving us an overview of the political currents in the Continental Congress during the period.

Tiger Tom I would certainly participate in any discussion you might organize and lead of a book with a Foreign Service theme. The title Ella mentioned doesn’t sound too bad or you might know of others.

Darn, what did Franklin have I don’t have. I’m older today than he was in 1778, and I wouldn’t dare. Maybe that’s the reason, he did dare!

Roslyn Stempel
November 15, 2001 - 07:25 pm
Harold, I think you are ironically referring to celebrities and dot.com millionaires as part of our natural aristocracy. I don't think so. I suspect things were clearer in Adams's day when the community leaders were a relatively small number of men of substance, economic as well as intellectual, and became part of the privileged minority who had access to higher education and hence higher status in the budding democracy. Adams was more earthbound when it came to evaluating men for their intrinsic worth. I'm not sure Jefferson had a clue. He had his head in the clouds a good part of the time --what's sometimes referred to in Yiddish as a "luftmensch."

Ros

Deems
November 15, 2001 - 08:17 pm
Interesting, Harold. From the way McCullough describes Franklin's demeanor, he really rode that humble plainsman from the wilds of Pennsylvania who doesn't even wear a wig or curl his hair right into all those French parlors. "Aw shucks, I'm just a provincial who's had a little luck with science."

I think Adams found it impossible to playact. (I think I wrote before that he had nothing of the diplomat in him.) He was way too direct for the French who didn't appreciate his manner. They could parade good old homespun Franklin around in much the same manner as poor Pocahauntus was paraded around London except that she was dressed up as an Elizabethan lady so the argument could be made that Indians were not uneducable.

The GAMES people play!!!

TigerTom
November 15, 2001 - 08:40 pm
Ella,

I will look for that book. Our local Library should be able to get a copy sent down here if it doesn't actually have it. Sure, if we can find a book that is interesting and factual, I would take on the job of DL gladly.

Wasn't sworn to Secrecy about Foreign Service life. Should have been about some of the idiocy in it, but wasn't. (It is safe though because so much of it could not be believed.) A little bit, yes, I was asked not to talk about, I guess not enough time has passed that I can yap about it.

Tom

TigerTom
November 15, 2001 - 09:07 pm
Might consider that Franklin had a few things going for him:
He was an intelligent man; a wily old fox; a highly respected man in the Scientific world; he was reknowed in Europe for his experiments with electricity, for the Lightening rod and the Franklin stove. His fame preceeded him. Franklin knew how the game was played in France. As for the ladies: he liked them and they liked him especially since he was more or less "Safe" they could flirt with him knowing that at his age the chance of him trying to follow up on a flirtation wasn't very great. so, he could safely flirt and could be safely flirted with back.

Jonathan
November 15, 2001 - 11:14 pm
Chapter 4 strikes me as the best chapter yet in getting to know John Adams, dealing with a period of time in which he was tried in such a variety of ways. Still the busy Congressman at the beginning, and writing the state constitution at the end of the chapter. With the sea voyage and Paris in between. Some of the endless detail which McCullough includes, to flesh-out JA, appeals to my imaginatin in peculiar ways. Perhaps they will seem inconsequential to the rest of you.

For example, what a change in him. Travelling 100 miles in one day, a Sunday, at that. And the entire journey in four days. Just two years earlier, it took him two weeks to travel the same distance, 300 and some miles; but then, we are told he was 'reluctant to travel on the Sabbath'. Was it the prospect of Paris? Where he soon learned to enjoy the company of women of fashion with their 'animated opinions'. Not that Adams let down his hesitating, moral guard. 'There was much he disapproved of, and even disliked, much that he found shocking', 192. But here, too, a curious change has come over him. Maryal mentioned it. And that British spy made a report of it, or gave the reason, in his perceptive appraisal, on page 200. It is no longer his Puritan values or upbringing at play here, but 'the ideal of republican virtues' which Adams had switched to in his determination to be a 'Roman'. In reality, McCullough tells us, 'Adams both loved and disapproved of France, depending in large degree on circumstances or his mood of the moment'. How very human.

As for spies, Adams' treatment of David Hartley, a member of Parliament and an emmissary of Lord North, which strikes one as being so deplorably undiplomatic, refusing to flatter, or so much as acknowledge the 'conceited dandy's' notions of his own genious and talents, seems so contrary to the elegance and politeness of the world in which he is now moving. Why such an insistence on honesty? It wasn't always that way. Several years earlier, we are told, Adams had written that 'concealment of one's dislike for another was not a form of dishonesty or deception, but an acceptible, even wise way of conducting the business of life', 208. I wonder, with tongue in cheek, if the change in attitude came about when he was acquiring some French while reading Moliere on the way across. Along with Amphitryon, he must have studied The Misanthrope. That would explain it, wouldn't it?

And then, in the matter of distinguishing character in people he met, Adams felt he could find clues to character in faces he observed, seeing for example, 'goodness and innocence' in the face of Louis XVI. But what a letdown when he looked into the mirror, and then reported the results in his diary, 214. What a character! What a chapter. But not all of it is true. The business of the Sevres porcelain chamber-pot is most certainly a malicious bit of gossip in that elegant society, of pre-revolutionary France.

Jonathan

BaBi
November 16, 2001 - 08:29 am
I found something in my Encarta on Adams in France which I thought worth repeating. By the time Adams arrived in France, as has already been noted, the major goals had been accomplished. France had "recognized" the United States, and treaties of friendship and commerce had been signed. It goes on to say that Adams remained in France for a year, studying European political affairs and sending detailed reports to Congress. As minister plenipotentiary to the Netherlands, he also made his first attempt to obtain a loan from them. At the end of 1778, Adams recommended to Congress that the commission be ended and that Franklin be appointed American Diplomatic Representative to France.

Considering the time travel took in those days, Congress...and Adams..had no way of knowing when he started out that the job would be done before he got there. Since he was there, he put in a year learning all he could, and assuring the same opportunity for his son.

I can understand J.A.'s treatment of David Hartley. Even though one might know that diplomacy is the wiser course, there are some people that just really set our teeth on edge! The man, obviously, is human. ...Babi

Harold Arnold
November 16, 2001 - 12:23 pm
One obvious fact regarding aristocracy, be it a “Natural Aristocracy” based on merit or a strictly privileged (heredity) one after the 18th century English model, the mass of people have no voice in choosing the members of the class. Too begin with the 18th century English group was not entirely with out merit. Compared to the general population they were well educated and many were quite capable. In addition the English system permitted the injection of new blood through the frequent creation of new peers.

Under the 18th century system membership is the class passed from father to eldest son by heredity. Admittedly there was no guarantee that ability passed also; obviously it did not in many cases. Unfortunately in the modern “Natural” system heredity still plays a far greater roll than we want to believe. The sons and daughters of the favored families are much more likely to receive the early and advanced education that assures their succession. Still to a much greater extent than 200 years ago, the road is open (though not so easy) for the sons and daughters of the all people through ability and personal effort to rise to the top

One of the John Adams work project described in Chapter4 that I think is of great significance to the design of our federal government system was his work on the Massachusetts State Constitution. Already in 1779 he was thinking of the details of future governance after Independence. JA wrote the draft. Some of JA’s language quoted by McCullough on page 222 seems to refute the charges later made by opponents that JA was a “Monarchist” wanting to install a constitutional King as the executive authority in America.

Though the convention changed some of the wording, this constitution still is the oldest functioning Constitution in America. It certainly was the foundation for JA’s later document written in Europe entitles, “A Defense of the Constitution of Governments of the United States.” Though Adams was in London when the US Constitution was drafted, this writing greatly influenced the form of the US government under the US Constitution in 1787.

Ella Gibbons
November 16, 2001 - 02:48 pm
WELCOME ROSLYN TO THE GROUP


Do catch up with us - we are only in the 4th chapter; and for you that shouldn't be difficult. We are all enjoying ourselves immensely with all manner of controversy about McCullough and John Adams - who would have thought we would have immersed ourselves in such affairs! A scathing book review and questions about whether the Continental Congress sent Dear John abroad because he was getting tiresome. And you brought up Thomas Jefferson with his "head in the clouds" while Adams was more earthbound - indeed, yes! The theme of our discussion is the relationship of Adams and Jefferson and we will be discussing that in the not too distant future. You must join us often and help us sort it all out.

This is a good place, perhaps, to put this TIMELINE OF THE REVOLUTION for us to review:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/rev-col.htm


Harold states: "But there was already a doer in Paris named Ben Franklin, and by the time JA got to Paris the principle task had been accomplished by him. The French Alliance had already been signed.

However, that "alliance" did not provide money for supplies needed badly for the war effort at home. In reading Brand's book, I have learned that France sent some men, but what was needed was money. I'll quote here:

"By the autumn of 1777 the situation was dire. The Congress had authorized the purchase of war supplies for the American army and the construction of warships for the American navy; now that the bills were coming due the commissioners discovered they lacked the funds to pay the suppliers and the builders……"


The Alliance with France brought French resources into the conflict on America's side but did not place them at America's disposal. After four years of fighting the credit of the United States was nearly nil. One has to remember that France was at the same fighting England. To quote further:

"Foreign governments and individuals were under no compulsion to accept American paper. Indeed they marveled at the Americans''system of financing the war. ''the whole is a mystery even to the politicians,' Franklin said, 'how we have been able to continue a war (said four years later)…..without money, and how we could pay with paper that had no previously fixed fund appropriated specifically to redeem it."


HELLO MARYAL! An excellent description of Adams in Paris who found it impossible to playact. He was way too direct for the French who didn't appreciate his manner. Somewhere in the Brand book I read that Adams immediately began studiously studying the French language and he was appalled at Franklin's lack of correct pronunciation of certain French words; but it was that very incorrect pronunciation that the French loved about Franklin and they had many a laugh together over his drollness.

This is an interesting quote from the Brand book:

Adams could never forgive Franklin for receiving too much credit for events. He held a similar grude against Washington, and in the last year of Franklin's life complained to Benjamin Rush: 'The history of our Revolution will be one continued lie from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin's electrical rod smote the Earth and out sprung General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his rod, and thence forward these two conducted all the policy, negotiations, legislatures and war."


That was so amusing, I couldn't help myself! Hahaha

THANKS ARE DUE TO TIGER TOM for offering to get a book that may lead to another interesting discussion!

JONATHAN sounds as though he is actually liking Dear John, considering him quite human in his attitude toward France, loving and hating it at the same time. Thanks, Jonathan, for a great post as always, love that summing up of this chapter. Are you ready for Chapter Five?

And also thanks to BABI - she's agreeing with you Jonathan. Did you see that?

I'm getting too long-winded here, but hello, Harold, I must review that state constituion again, but as I remember there were two things about it that bothered me - it did not guarantee freedom of religion; rather it stated that it was the "duty" of all people to worship. Also something about freedeom of speech, but I forget it now, must go back and read. However, I do remember that it is the oldest constitution in America - I wonder how many amendments it has seen.

SHALL WE BEGIN CHAPTER FIVE?

Ella Gibbons
November 16, 2001 - 03:39 pm
A few amendments: Haha

What is this Part the First - Part the Second? I have never seen that before.

http://www.socialaw.com/reference/constitution.html

Harold Arnold
November 16, 2001 - 04:11 pm
Some comments on the Financing of the War: this is another area where McCullough does not give us much information. (Here I go complaining again. If the author had included all the details I’ve complained he left out, this would have been a 17-volume tome). As Adams found out European loans were hard to come by in the 18th century. I think it was close to the end of the war when an American Victory was almost certain, before his effort was successful.

I suspect the different colonies that sent their militia units finance the equipment and cost of these troops. The states had borrowed money to finance their activities. Remember at the end of the war the proposed assumption of the war debt of the States by the National government became a national issue during the Washington Administration. . Some of the States like Virginia had already paid off much of their debt and were opposed to paying of the debt of other states.

And remember the twenty-four-gun frigate, Boston on which JA first sailed to France. This ship was probably built in Boston financed by the builder hoping to reap a large pay-off from sale of the prize ships captured at sea by the crew. On the crossing to France the Boston captured a large British merchant ship on which she put a prize crew (ie an officer and a small crew) to sail her to Boston for sale. But bad luck, the prize encountered a British navy unit and it was recaptured ending up in Newfoundland.

Finally Wars were relatively cheap to finance in the 18th century. Every soldier brought his musket and gunpowder was easy to make locally. With very cheap and simple armaments a makeshift rabble army could be the equivalent of an assembly of the best-trained professional regiments. How must current revolutionaries yearn for the good old days?

Ella Gibbons
November 16, 2001 - 06:53 pm
Harold you would love the Brand book, it is full of detail - much more than I care to read! There is so much more about the financing of the revolution and I just couldn't put it all in one post. Profiteering by individuals, yes, there was that and so much more.

"But efforts to borrow money from European bankers foundered on the reluctance of the bankers to lend to America while its future hung in the balance. Ships carrying cargoes from America were lost to the British blockade. France's refusal to countenance the sale of American prizes curtailed the revenues America had derived therefrom. The Spanish court had lately stopped furnishing funds, for reasons unexplained." (from the Brand book)

But Vergennes, France's foreign minister, was not willing to see America go under all the way and so under the table he did give them money; however in the eyes of the other European powers France was aloof toward America's plight.

Wasn't JA successful in raising money in Holland? I believe so - I'll have to go back to the book. At one point, Franklin wrote to JA in Holland and said that he had made another plea for funds from the French Court and could only wait. How difficult it must have been for these proud men to beg for money for their country, don't you think?

Franklin, in his letter said: "I have, however, two of the Christian graces; faith and hope. But my faith is only that of which the Apostle speaks, the evidence of things not seen. For in truth I do not see at present how so many bills drawn at random on our ministers in France, Spain and Holland are to be paid, nor that any thing but omnipotent necessity can excuse the imprudence of it."

much, much, more....... (but enough for one day)

betty gregory
November 16, 2001 - 07:02 pm
That WAS funny, Ella, from the Brand book, the quote to B. Rush.....Adams lamenting that history of the revolution will be one long, continuous lie, giving all the credit to Franklin, his electricity and Washington. That's one more piece of evidence that Adams perceived politics, even as he was not political. Adams was not tolerant of human foibles, was he? Franklin's sloppy French. The lack of order aboard ship. I wonder if McCullough struggled with a distinction (balance?) between Adams' high level work ethic and his grumbling perfectionism. Maybe the Franklin-Adams duo was needed in France, Franklin for the politi'k'ing and Adams to run a ship-shape office.

I wish McCullough had given more space to Abigail's life, even though the book is meant to be about John. I would love to know all about her running the farm, raising the children, worrying about money, the war, her husband. I wonder how much more freedom she had than other women of her community, simply as the wife of John Adams, or was there no difference other than what she demanded? What was it, exactly, that she loved about this persnickety, fussy man? What did she know about him that his male colleagues did not? In person, did he criticize her, too?

Ella Gibbons
November 16, 2001 - 07:17 pm
"Maybe the Franklin-Adams duo was needed in France, Franklin for the politi'k'ing and Adams to run a ship-shape office."

Very well said, Betty! JA was up at 5 every morning in France and busy, busy, complaining, learning French, complaining, working on the accounts, complaining, walking 10 miles a day, complaining, drafting reports to Congress, complaining.....

ALF
November 17, 2001 - 05:49 am
Betty:  Your wish may be granted.  On one of the interviews Mccullough merely raised his eyebrows and smiled when a man in the audience asked him if he would ever write a book about Abigal?

Struggling to learn Dutch and its history Adams was well aware of the complicated government of that country.  Financial support through a loan was held in abeyance as  Dutch prosperity depended on the Brits supporting Dutch trade at sea..  They also held substantial loans to Britian.  (To say nothing of the tenuous situation with the US new-found freedom.)  I give him credit, he, too, was a like a dog with a bone!  He never gave up and campaigned religiously reporting his diplomatic attempts to win everyone over.  That was a tough job as all hell was breaking loose over here in the U.S. with little liklihood for peace.

williewoody
November 17, 2001 - 09:08 am
While it may seem insignificant to others posting here, it was an important small detail which shows the character of JA. During the engagement and capture of the British ship MARTHA, Captain Tucker found JA among his Marines armed and prepared to fight. So he was a defacto United States Marine, which to this writer is important having served in the Corps myself in the past. When asked why he was there Adams replied " I ought to do my share of the fighting." Spoken like a true Marine.

Deems
November 17, 2001 - 09:21 am
williewoody---That description of Adams armed and ready to fight struck me as well. He clearly was a brave man in more than one way! He was not one to wait below decks until the smoke cleared.

Ella Gibbons
November 17, 2001 - 10:25 am
~BEGIN CHAPTER FIVE~


GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!

All of you put it so well this morning describing JA - a dog with a bone, a Marine who isn't afraid to fight, a brave man who was not one to wait below decks. You write so well and thanks so much for those comments.

Shall we join JA on his mule train, amidst the bedbugs and fleas, back to France. What a fellow, and how stubborn - as he says "Thanks to God that he gave me stubborness when I know I am right."

And was he right when he said that he "had no illusions about what determined the actions of nations." Quoting JA - "It is interest alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted."

And again - "I have many reasons to think that not one of them, not even Spain or France, wishes to see America rise very fast to power."

Isn't it true today that nations act in their best interests when called upon by others?

later.....eg

Ella Gibbons
November 17, 2001 - 10:29 am
Harold - are you still high and dry there in Texas this morning? Golly, when it rains it pours there. So sorry about it all.

Harold Arnold
November 17, 2001 - 10:45 am
I received quite a bit of Rain Thursday and on Wednesday when it first began an unexpected bolt cut off the electric service abruptly shuting down the computer. There was no damage and all that was required was the automatic running of scandisk on the next boot. The heavy rain and storms came further north of me and some areas particularly the Northwest subburbs of Austin had heavy damage. Where I am located I am high and while there was plenty of rain, there was no damage. I will post later.

BaBi
November 17, 2001 - 12:27 pm
This is my THIRD attempt to post this message. I am about in a mood to start kicking something!

I wanted to say two things before departing Ch. 4. First, the appropriateness of Abigail's comment re. G.W. on pg. 168 seems so very appropriate to our present circumstances. "I am apt to think that our late misfortunes have called out the hidden excllencies of our commander-in-chief". I cannot but think how well that applies to our present commander-in-chief.

Secondly, in response to Ella. I cannot think Congress commissioned JA to France in order to get him out of their hair. At that time,JA had returned home, declined to run for re-election to Congress, and had resumed his private practice. With Silas Deane being returned home under a cloud, Congress was looking for someone to replace him. It looks more to me like a case of the guy not present at the meeting getting saddled with the most unrewarding job. I can hear it now:"How about Adams? He's just sitting a home taking it easy. He can hardly refuse. No, don't ASK him. Just commission him and notify him." ..Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 17, 2001 - 03:07 pm
HELLO BABI:

We have hardly touched upon Abigail, have we? And we should, she's the woman behind the scenes (although we will see more of her in later chapters) but she deserves more mention than she is getting in this discussion. I went to the page you quoted and, as has been said before, so many remarks in this book can be related to our present situation; you were circumspect in that opinion. However, I doubt if we will know the truth of what is going on in the White House war room for some years to come. I think the president has a great staff and I'm not sure who is making the decisions, but one thing I can agree with and that is for now the outlook is favorable.

While on that page, I had marked this comment of Abigail's in a letter to JA - doesn't she write well:

"I want a bird of passage. Posterity who are to reap the blessings will scarcely be able to conceive the hardships and sufferings of their ancestors."


True, true.

We'll never know what the Continental Congress thought of JA and why they sent him abroad, but I do know that it was crucial to the war effort to obtain support from France and perhaps they thought he, with his determined and stubborn attitudes, might succeed.

williewoody
November 17, 2001 - 05:34 pm
As we leave Chapter 4-- one last comment. You know, we all complain about our Postal Service, but when we read here that it took 3 to 6 months for a letter to go from here to Europe or return, and even then it may never get to it's destination. I it any wonder that Congress chose to have three delegates represent our very young nation in France. I guess the theory was three heads are better than one, since Franklin, Lee, and Adams were left to make decisions on their own because of the inability to communicate back and forth. Even communication within the States took what must have seemed like an eternity as compared with today.I can honestly say that I have never maligned our Postal Service. They have never lost a single piece of my mail in over 50 years. Sometimes the service was slow in an age of instaneous e-mail communication, and on one or two occasions a piece of mail was mutilated. But aren't we lucky to hae a good Postal System.

Harold Arnold
November 17, 2001 - 08:49 pm
williewoody, do you think we will continue to have a good postal service and are they as important as they use to be? As few as seven years ago, it was very important. Today 75% of the mail I receive in my box is junk. I still get my bills and bank and other similar statements, etc by snail, but my recent thought are that most of this could come by E-Mail and much of it is already available on line. Though I still get my mail bank statements they are available on line and I frequently check things that way. Likewise all my PW account transactions are available on line and I can even access monthly statements back several years. I think I could function quite well getting these items exclusively by E-mail. Frankly I can live without the mass of junk mail and today don’t even open most of it. Also I don’t feel I should be using latex gloves when I read my E-mail.

I note that E-mail too is getting a lot of junk traffic. Again the delete button is quite handy.

Elizabeth N
November 17, 2001 - 10:16 pm
I'm going to do something that will make you all groan and moan! I need to tell you about a book of which I know neither the title (moan) nor the author (groan), but it's an important book to this discussion and I'm sure one of you will help me remember. The protagonist in this historical novel is de Beaumarchais, the French dramatist who wrote The Marriage of Figaro and The Barber of Seville. He was also a speculator in arms for the American Revolution which the French goverment would not let him ship and the whole long novel concerns his efforts and Franklin's to circumvent the barriers--they succeeded in the nick of time for our guys. This is a beautifully written work by a German Jew, a refugee who wound up living and working in Southern California. The titles of all his books are un-memorable. Can anyone help me? ...elizabeth

mwhenrie
November 17, 2001 - 10:35 pm
Ella, I agree that Adams was sent to France because of his fortitude and honesty. They believed he would broker a deal without compromise. Note the mention on spies between Britain and France. Adams could be trusted to do the right thing and be unwavering with the French. Nor was he going to wile a away his time when he could make no head way with Vergennes, he takes off to Holland to secure a loan for the colonies. A very forthright man.

williewoody
November 18, 2001 - 07:31 am
HAROLD: You are correct. It is my belief that the Postal system will be downsized, but it will be over a period of time as workers retire. Obviously they have job protection. There are still needs for movement of documents and of course large or even small packages, that cannot travel by e-mail, at least not yet. Junk mail drives me crazy too. There seems to be no way to stop it. I get a lot of PAC mail. Recently, I tried something new. I take one of their return envelopes,preferably one with return postage paid and stuff it full of as much of all the mailings I can get in and return it to them. It may be too early to tell for sure, but I think my message may be getting through to some of them. I use E-mail where ever I can for personal mail. Unfortunately, some of my friends don't choose to come into the 21st century. Cost certainly is not an excuse, as I have used WebTv for two years and it is not very expensive, and gives me everything I need. Oh well, on to Chapter 5.

Harold Arnold
November 18, 2001 - 08:55 am
Elizabeth N: Your message #320 does NOT make me moan or grown. I think side related issues raise by the book and our discussion of it are quite legitimate when posted here by participants. I encourage you and others to make such posts. I am sorry though, I do not have the answer to your question.

Harold Arnold
November 18, 2001 - 09:22 am
Elizabeth N: Check these two B&N catalog entries. The first, not a novel, is de Beaumarchais ‘s writing pertaining to the American Revolution. The second, I doubt it, but take a look and see what you think. Also further Google search on "de Beaumarchais" and other search strings may yield results.

For The Good Of Mankind

Three Popular French Comedies

Williewoody: also the several private express companies have done an excelcent job in reliable, fast delivery of packages of all sizes.

Jonathan
November 18, 2001 - 12:28 pm
It's hard to imagine America not being a good bet, or a good investment. What better place than Amsterdam to get the odds. Amsterdam, 'the busiest port in Europe, the richest city in the world'. Home of Europe's money lenders, 245. Then why couldn't Adams get the loans he was after? Ostensibly it was the Dutch/English connection. Dutch dependence on Britain as 'a matter of commercial advantage',250, and existing loans to Britain. Could doing business with America be viewed as trading with the enemy?

All this may be true, but I wonder if JA's honesty and integrity, of which everyone must have been aware, worked to his disadvantage, in negotiating a loan; or prevented him from accessing the cash and credit available among men eager to do business. (This may almost seem a little strange when we remember that John and Abigail themselves were clever shacher-machers, with John always sending her something to sell. Even whilst speaking 'bitterly of a selfish, avaricious spirit that has taken hold' of America.) James Warren (was that Mercy's husband? I can't remember.) talked of the 'fellows who would have cleaned my shoes five years ago' had 'amassed fortunes and are riding in chariots', 219.

Because without offending the British or without their knowledge, perhaps, the Dutch were wheeling and dealing in ways specific to the success of the colonial struggle for independence. 'Official' money might have to await successful Independence; but in the meantime the Dutch 'had been smuggling arms to America in quanity since before the French had become involved, 242. 'Dutch merchants had grown rich in trade.' Therefore I think it is ironical that Adams reports,to Franklin in Paris, the animated talk of the 'merchants and bankers' in the smoke-filled coffee shops in Amsterdam, 246, deciding where to put their money. It seems to have been reported with innocence on Adams' part, since the talk struck him as amusing; but it must have been most interesting to Franklin, with his closeness to French wheeler/dealers, as for example the 'wealthy government contractor' the Comte de Chaumont, at whose magnificent Hotel de Valentinois Franklin was living rent free, 190.

I agree that we should be taking a greater interest in Abigail Adams, and we probably will later in the book. She did more than keep the home fires burning, while John was away; and she was more than your average home-maker. She did find the money, for example, to buy considerable acreage in Vermont, as a speculative venture. But the farm in Braintree was enough of the rustic and bucolic for her husband, and the Vermont property was sold, I believe.

John and Abigail seem to have made a perfect fit...a marriage made in heaven. So it comes as a shock to read 'yet as before, Adams remained reluctant to profess his love for her', 237. Does this strike anyone as strange? And as he does so often, McCullough juxtapositions two aspects of something, for effect, or maybe as an indication of the puzzling complexity of JA's character. Because what could be stranger than the paragraph which follows (the non-avowal of love) with its odd mixture of heart-rending pathos and self-righteous moral and patriotic bombast? Top of page 238.

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
November 18, 2001 - 02:46 pm
ELIZABETH - am so happy to hear from you again. Just as Harold stated, I have no idea who your author is but perhaps it will come to you. I know that occasionally when I forget something, I'll be driving down a highway and it will POP into my head for no reason whatsoever and it is almost scary how that happens and it's a mystery! Do you remember any other details in the book? Well, if it comes to you let us know as a good writer is always what we are looking for!

LET'S ALL GIVE A BIG WELCOME TO OUR NEWEST MEMBER - MWHENRIE!


(clap, clap, clap) - And you are right on target with us as we are just getting into JA's trip to Holland in this chapter.

Does everyone agree with MWHENRIE when he stated "Adams could be trusted to do the right thing and be unwavering with the French. Nor was he going to wile away his time when he could make no head way with Vergennes, he takes off to Holland to secure a loan for the colonies?" Does that imply, however, that Franklin could not? Neither of them are doing too well getting help from Europe and, in fact, as Harold stated, and as we will read later, there were a lot of war debts that had to be paid when the final bill was reckoned.

Hi WillieWoody! I agree with everything you and Harold said about email! Wonderful, I am so thankful I have this computer and, if you ever find a way to convince your friends that it is easy to learn and inexpensive, let me know how you did it. I have some friends that I would love to persuade!

Oh, golly, JONATHAN, just read your post with great interest and I must return to the book before I answer it - particularly this statement - " Adams remained reluctant to profess his love for her', 237." I don't remember that and I am in haste at the moment to run away from this computer to go out to dinner. No cooking tonight!!!! Will return later to answer some of those questions, if I can, or at least speculate! Thanks so much for your comments.

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR A GREAT DISCUSSION. THE BEST I'VE EVER HAD ON SENIORNET - THEY JUST GET BETTER AND BETTER!

One last note before I run off:

Do you know what I heard on TV the other day - it was PBS and I was getting dinner and so I cannot quote this exactly but Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks were talking about collaborating on several TV specials and one of them is going to be this book - JOHN ADAMS! I ran into the other room hoping to hear whether it was going to be a fictionalized account or a documentary, but, darn, I missed that part. Is there some way we can find that out?

later…..eg

ALF
November 18, 2001 - 06:15 pm
Oh please! I do have a problem with Abigale. She has given her life for John and her children. Did she have a choice? She could have instead done ---------- ? what? Gone to work cleaning houses or acting as the maid of the day? NO! She gave her life, her love, her tender words and encouragement to a man that showed up when he could, impregnated her & then left her & his family for the outbacks of nowhere. For the love of his country! Yeah, right! Sure Abbey, I'd be a happy woman with this star hero.

Doesn't Mr. John strike you as a bit egotistic? We can all love from afar. I am sorry but he gets my goat with his priggish, New England attitude.

Ella Gibbons
November 18, 2001 - 09:48 pm
JONATHAN,and ALF! Both of you professing that John Adams is a reluctant and neglectful husband and lover - Oh, say not! "Try as he would through life, John Adams was never able to express adequately his attachment to home, his adoration of his wife and children. And the effect of his long absences since the onset of the war had only intensified these feelings." 218

"I am, with an ardor that words have not power to express, yours."

We must ask Ann Alden, who has the book containing their letters if he ever professes love to her in a letter, but I certainly wouldn't hold that against the fellow, he doesn't seem the type - New Englanders are like that, I'm told. Perhaps their English heritage? But he writes to her endlessly (McCullough tells us so) while in Europe. And there are more than 1000 letters existing to prove it, only half of which have ever been published. (see the acknowledgment page at the end of the book)

And while we are on the subject, why were these letters and papers of JOHN ADAMS just released approximately 50 years ago? I read somewhere that they were in a TRUST and, of course, now I can't find the reference.

But what do you make of her little dalliance with James Lovell in JA's absence? Signing her name with JA's pet name for her? A married man, no less! Letters went back and forth with hidden meanings if you ask me! A dangerous man with insinuations.217

But Alf - she loves him, she would have him no other way, she has told him so over and over. Oh, but it is good YOU didn't marry a New England man with rigid ideas and patriotric fervor!

However, I love your indignation! How dare he! What man wouldn't with such a delightful woman. And another question, how in those days was she able to buy property? As I remember my history women could not own property back then, only a male could, so how was she able to buy it in JA's absence?

Do any of you watch on Sunday nights the TV show starring Richard Dreyfus (whom I adore as an actor) titled THE EDUCATION OF MAX BICKFORD. Tonight he talked about the dangers of Revisionist History, so it is good to be critical of any writer that professes to be an "authority." Already McCullough has had to change the wording of the phrase he attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Historians are human and make mistakes, too.

Tis late, and I must stop jabbering....... tomorrow! Love reading all your comments.

mwhenrie
November 18, 2001 - 10:36 pm
To Alf. I do not consider JA a prig just because he did not expouse his love to Abigail in this letters. I would be a rarity to find any written correspondence expressing loving emotions between spouses in colonial times. I think JA pays Abigail great honor by valuing her thoughts, especially her political opinion. He did not think her the inferior sex. Later in the book we see that Jefferson could never even admit to his sons that he was their father because he couldn't even acknowledge their black mother. JA may never use the word "love", but he certainly expressed it more admirably then Jefferson ever could.

betty gregory
November 18, 2001 - 11:15 pm
Interesting point of view, Alf. As I understood your post, you weren't complaining so much about what he did or did not say in a letter, but that he was AWAY so much of the time, pursuing his dreams with very few restrictions. Abigail made that possible. She took care of his home, children, farm and was responsible, for a time, for all this DURING A WAR, and DURING A PLAGUE OF ILLNESS. His freedom to expand as a human being, as a patriot, as a key strength during the volatile days of declaring independence....someone maintained his personal home so that he could be free to do it all. John had few restrictions, as Abigail had many.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Alf, but adding to her description of what Abigail gave and gave up.

betty

ALF
November 19, 2001 - 06:40 am
I reread my post this AM and do admit I was a bit harsh judging their love and devotion towards one another. I am aware of the love she held for the man but it makes me wonder how she even KNEW this man that she had married. She lived with him for about 10 minutes and was nearly overcome with delusions of his greatness, with her cheering on the sidelines.

"I know America capable of anything she untdertakes with spirit and vigor." No effort was too great for peace, no cost too dear, she worte and he must never doubt that his own part in seving that end meant everything to her.

I am aware that the New England attitude makes for restricted emotional letters from John-- but good grief-- she told him how difficult it was being seperated from him. With all of his rhetoric could he have thrown her a tiny scrap of tenderness in his correspondence?

I know this isn't the popular feeling here but he's a man, not a God. Ella's right! Damned good thing I didn't marry a man such as he. I fear his lack of emoting and his long absences would have been my undoing while waiting for tender moments.

Ella Gibbons
November 19, 2001 - 09:25 am
MWHENRIE - (if I get your logon name spelled wrong a time or two, forgive me, please) This statement I agree with - ". I think JA pays Abigail great honor by valuing her thoughts, especially her political opinion. He did not think her the inferior sex." We'll look for the words in which JA stated this in subsequent letters, but I know he did. Thanks for remembering this.

" His freedom to expand as a human being, as a patriot, as a key strength during the volatile days of declaring independence....someone maintained his personal home so that he could be free to do it all. John had few restrictions, as Abigail had many."


Thanks, Betty, great post and true words. Do you see another way JA or any of these patriots could have performed so well during this period of history when travel, communication and mail was so primitive, so slow? I think we should be grateful for both Abigail and JA all the others for the sacrifices they made!

And, as ALF, has pointed out, it was a sacrifice, but one that Abigail was willing to pay for freedom and liberty.

Jefferson was not as willing to make this sacrifice as we shall see.

Several times now in the last two chapters I have read of JOHN ADAMS' beliefs that luxury equates with corruption and it strikes me as odd that we are reading these thoughts of a man that lived 200 years ago while listening to men speaking these same words today - these men of Islamic faith - speaking of Americans this time and not the French of Adams' day.

ALF - and all other females around do read what Abigail has to say on page 257 and 258! In this letter she tells of her longing for him and how alone she feels and can you believe our Abigail when she says:

More independent by nature, he (man) can scarcely realize all those ties which bind our sex to his. Is it not natural to suppose that as our dependence is greater, our attachment is stronger?


Methinks this self-reliant woman, who is taking care of everything at home, is hardly dependent upon Dear John, however much she may believe it. Dependent on his love, yes, true, but in any other way?

If we heard or read that last quote today, what would we say? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING, SISTER! - "Man is more independent by nature????????????

BaBi
November 19, 2001 - 12:06 pm
The more I read of JA's letters, the higher my opinion of him. His advice to the young man planning to travel in Europe earned my applause, certainly. His letters to his friends, private letters to members of Congress...in other words, letters he would not have expected to be 'preserved for posterity', still abound with the same sturdy pride in being American, with astute insights, and plain down-home wisdom.

I have to agree with his assessment that luxury tends to corruption. When people no longer have to work to survive, life loses some of its sharpness, IMHO. People with time on their hands begin look farther and farther afield for meaning or amusement, leave responsibilities to others, become lax, soft, uninformed....ie., corrupt, and vulnerable to enemies. The repeated lesson of history, is it not.

In that connection I read with interest his comments that their generation had, of necessity, to study politics and war, so that their children would be free to study those things that bring advancement and prosperity...mathematics,commerce, agriculture, etc. Then with prosperity, the next generation would "have the right" to pursue the arts, music, literature, architecture. In practice, all these things must continue to be studied by each generation. The greater mass of us must continue to pursue the daily routine of the world, the commerce, the science, the provision of food. And there must always be those who continue to "study war", in order to protect those of us who keep the world turning and those who ornament that world with their arts. Sorry...that particular quote obviusly got me going. On the Dutch, I think they really appreciated and understood JA's work ethic, stubbornness, and honesty. But they were a very small country, keeping a balance between two (or three) very large neighbors. They were not in a position, despite their wealth and (largely mercantile) navy, to needlessly offend them. ..Babi

Harold Arnold
November 19, 2001 - 12:18 pm
While I respectfully decline to get too deep into the debate on whether JA neglected Abigail in favor of his work on behalf of the revolution that kept him away from hearth and home for a significant portion of their married life, I will add the following comment. First regarding the tone and wording of the letters passing between them. JA frequently uses words such as “my dear friend,” and similar wordings using other modifiers in connection with “friend.” I know of one other almost contemporary husband also away from home who used similar language. This was John James Audubon who in 1826 traveled alone to England to arrange for the publication of his “Birds of North America” paintings. He was a way for about a year before his wife, Lucy joined him in Europe. His published “1826 Journal" includes many letters to Lucy. He probably wrote more than John Adams seems to have written Abigail, but the language also referred to Lucy with the word friend with modifiers much as JA had done almost 50 years earlier. As has been mentioned here, both John and Abigail were probably aware that their letters were to eventually be public. This fact as well as a greater 18th century reluctance to express personal feelings, I think explains the lack of personal feeling that is common in letters between involuntarily separated couples today.

I really think JA and Abigail were quite devoted to one another. Remember that when they were first separated it was 1775 the couple had been married for more than 10 years and already were the parents of several children. Also it was not too long after JA receives his second assignment in Europe that Abigail joined him despite her fear of sailing. After that they were very close living a rather idyllic life amid the great and near great of Europe that few of their contemporaries were in a position to enjoy.

I cannot see Abigail as a typical 18th century woman or housewife. She was very literate, even educated. Most certainly she was quite capable of managing her life and her house in the absence of her husband. While he was away she not only managed the farm and the Braintree homestead, she even bought land in Vermont, and on her own made the decision to go to Boston to have the family vaccinated for smallpox. I do not know about the legal issues, about her buying land in her name. Perhaps title was in John’s name, but she certainly managed her domain well during her husband’s long absence. As a Woman she appears much more a person in her own right, than Martha Washington and the spouses of the other founding fathers.

BaBi
November 19, 2001 - 12:29 pm
Harold, thank you so much for your post about JA's expression of affection in his letters. That is a subject I had planned to get into, then forgot. You explained it far better than I could have, and I believe you are entirely correct. I'm especially glad you pointed out that JA and Abigail had many years together before he became involved in the political events of the day. It was hardly a case of a lifetime of neglect. ..Babi

Harold Arnold
November 19, 2001 - 02:11 pm
One of the actors with a reoccurring role in our biography of JA., is the Philadelphia physician, Dr Benjamin Rush. He first appears as a member or the 2nd Continental Congress and appears and reappears from time to time through out most of the remainder of the book. This is and interesting person in his own right outside his role in Congress and as a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was a founder and member of the American Philosophical Society a colonial American version of the British Royal society. He became a personal friend and most often a political friend of John Adams throughout their lives.

In 1803 while preparing for the trek up the Missouri, over the mountains to the Pacific, President Jefferson had Captain Meriwether Lewis visit Dr Rush in Philadelphia where he practiced medicine. The doctor gave liberal medical advice that according to Stephen Ambrose in his “Undaunted Courage” biography of Lewis (Page 89) included recommending horizontal rest to overcome fatigue (sounds reasonable), fasting and diluting drinks for a day or two to prevent fevers, and to prevent disease a gentle sweat obtained by warm drinks, or gently opening the bowels by means of one, two or more of the purging pills. These Pills, Ambrose continues, >were under Dr Rush’s patent, known as “Rush’s pill, ”but generally referred to (by Dr Rush’s patients) as “Thunderclappers.” Ambrose describes this medication with the following words:
As far as Rush was concern they were sovereign for nearly all of mankind’s ills. They were composed of calomel, a mixture of six parts mercury to one part chlorine, and Jalap (what is that?). Each drug was a purgative of explosive power; the combination was awesome.


I doubt that the word, “gentle” was appropriate to describe the action of this medication, but Lewis and Clark took a large supply with them on their journey and dispensed them liberally to both their ailing men and sometime Indian visitors. Apparently the pill generally left no permanent health damage as all but one of the men that started out returned 2 ½ years later apparently in good health. The one exception was Sergeant Charles Floyd who died from an illness having the symptoms of a ruptured appendix. Ambrose and apparently the record does not tell us what medication was administered to Floyd when he became ill, but I suspect if Rush’s pill were involved they could well have contributed to the rupture of the inflamed appendix and the death of the patient.

I will add another comment on the British Royal Society. This was an exclusive association of the intellectually elite of the society. There were Americans who were members. First and foremost during the early years was the American artist, Benjamin West. West was mentioned several times by McCullough in our book. He became the 2nd president of the Society. Though he spent his productive life living in England, he continued to claim his American identity and declined to accept the knighthood offered by George III. He had been engaged by the King to decorate a Chapel at Windsor and though the project was canceled he remained on good terms with the English throughout his long life, never actually returning to America. The San Antonio Museum of Art where I formerly did volunteer work has a large oil sketch that he made when planning the Windsor project entitle, “Noah Sacrificing After The Flood.” While this is not a great work, being meant only as a sketch, it is an impressive oil painting much admired by visitors today.

Here is another Site with more Benjamin West picture images. Check out the one entitled, Death of General Wolf. A later English artist made a paining entitled, "The Death of Lord Nelson" that to me seems to borrow heavly from the Wolf scene. Benjamin West Paintings

Ella Gibbons
November 19, 2001 - 06:31 pm
Those are lovely paintings, Harold - thank you. West did lovely work although I'm certainly no judge of art. His self portrait shows quite a handsome young man and that hat he has on is the image of one I used to wear when I was about 21 only I wore it tilted a bit differently. haha

Do you know who Colonel Guy Johnson was - with that huge Indian in the background? The colors in the Treaty of Indians are beautiful and it looks as though, once again, the Indians are giving away precious lands for a bolt of cloth!!! Oh!

THUNDERCLAPPERS! Purges! Funny, Harold! But not so funny if you were on the trail and they took effect suddenly, oh, golly! And they used leeches when one was ill to suck out the bad blood in those days, also. I believe I read some time ago that they put leeches on George Washington when he was dying. I would have died from the sight of the leeches on my body, or I should say I would rather have died than have the leeches placed on my poor sick body!

Thanks for telling that story about Benjamin Rush - so many good books out at the moment about prominent figures in American History.

The American Philosophical Society has a library and museum in Philly and can be viewed here - check out some of those stories, particularly the one about Julien of Paris (shameful). American Philosophical Society

What did you think of Franklin's letter to Congress concerning JA? Rather mean-spirited, I thought, even though he does qualify his remarks somewhat. "Mr. Adams has given extreme offense to the court here…..Mr. Adams, on the other hand, who at the same time means our welfare and interest as much as I do or any man can do, seems to think a little apparent stoutness and greater air of independence and boldness in our demands will produce us more ample assistance. Mr. Vergennes, who appears much offended, told me yesterday that he would enter into no further discussions with Mr. Adams……"242

When the letter was received in Congress it ignited sharp debate. Some supported John Adams and others who had little faith in his "stiffness and tenaciousness of temper" were very critical.

How then can we ever arrive at any conclusion about Mr. John Adams, when even those who knew him personally could not agree on his attributes? We can agree that he was a very controversial figure and we must decide sometime before our discussion of the Revolution is finished whether he was instrumental in his contribution to its success or just wasting the money spent on his adventures abroad.

But we have plenty of time yet until we reach that debate; however we will keep it in mind as we continue JA's sojourn in Europe. Many adventures yet to come.

Jonathan
November 19, 2001 - 11:56 pm
Thanks, Harold, for the link to the Benjamin West paintings. After wondering what Ella might look like in a hat such as that, I turned to The Death of General Wolfe. That scene would be familiar to every Canadian school child. And looking at it sent me off to see if I still had that great tale: With Wolfe in Canada, or The Winning of a Continent, by G A Henty. Sure do. You must have read some of Henty's books when you were young. The author begins his Preface with My Dear Lads. Ah, yes. There were Boys Books, and there were Girls Books. Now everybody reads Harry Potter.

Which reminds me of Abigail Adams' interest in education, and politics, and women's issues, as well as being her husband's alter ego. It's good to see the interest in Abigail, in the recent posts. I can't resist quoting from a biography of her (Akers') an excerpt which might tempt everyone to give her a bigger share in the discussion. The time: about 1790.

'As she once declared to John, "my ambition will extend no further than Reigning in the Heart of my Husband. That is my Throne and there I aspire to be absolute." For her, then, any further emancipation of American women must take place within the confines of marriage, rational Christianity, and republican institutions. Women must be as zelous to preserve what they had already attained as to work for new gains. The daughters and granddaughters of the American Revolution had more to fear from social revolutionaries than from the tyranny of husbands. The position she had reached by 1790 was clear: "Tho' as females we have no voice in Legislation, yet is our happiness so blended and interwoven with those who have, that we have every reason to rejoice in the improvement of science and the advancement of civilization which has proved so favorable to our sex, and has lead mankind to consider us in a much more respectable light than we deserve." '

And then she went off to New York, to visit her daughter; but also with a political purpose. John stayed on the farm, not actively seeking high office. 'Abigail promised him that she would be politically discreet during her trip, that she would "hear all" but "say little".

Sorry for jumping ahead, but it gets so interesting.

Jonathan

Louise H
November 20, 2001 - 06:48 pm
Good evening - I am reading "Founding Brothers" by Jos. Ellis. Its wonderful - not as close to my heart as JA, but still great. The more I read about the men who made a nation out of 13 independent and ornery states, the more I admire them.

This might be a great book to discuss, after JA -unless everybody is exhausted from JA. I keep running back and forth between JA and Founding Brothers, they cover the same time period and the same subjects to some extend. I'd suggest it to anybody who enjoys Adams. Louise

Ella Gibbons
November 20, 2001 - 08:35 pm
HELLO JONATHAN - I've tried so often today to get on Seniornet, in between grocery shopping, baking pies, going to the doctor with my husband where we got better news than we expected.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE VERY BUSY THE NEXT FEW DAYS WITH THANKSGIVING AND THE INTERNET IS VERY BUSY (PROBABLY ALL THE SCHOOL KIDS CHATTING ONLINE), SO WE MAY NOT BE IN AS OFTEN AS WE WOULD LIKE, BUT WE WILL DO OUR BEST! I'M GOING TO GO OUT OF TOWN TOMORROW UNTIL SATURDAY BUT MY DAUGHTER HAS A COMPUTER AND I'LL LOOK IN AND SAY HI!

JONATHAN - Are you feeling lonely in here with all these people celebrating something that Canadians do not? Do you have a Harvest Day celebration or something in the Fall similar to our Holiday? Actually, I think that is what we celebrate, the Fall Harvest, but we were all taught in school that is was when the Pilgrims and the Indians had a harvest together. However, in hindsight, the shabby way the native Americans were subsequently treated I doubt we should be celebrating at all!

It was with surprise that I read (245) that the Pilgrims settled at Leyden, in Holland, for 12 years before embarking for Massachusetts. If I was ever taught that, I certainly have forgotten it. Wonder what other history lessons I've forgotten?

AND LOUISE! HELLO! BRING ANYTHING THAT YOU LEARN THAT IS NOT IN THIS BOOK TO US, WILL YOU? ARE YOU THROUGH WITH JOHN ADAMS? Oh, but I hope not with this discussion, we have so much more to talk about yet.

Reading about JA's trip to Holland by all manner of transport was fascinating to me and the description of the windmills, the 500 bridges arching the canals - how wondrous it must have seemed - the Town Hall built on 13,659 wooden piles. Imagine!

Just to briefly finish up that story of Franklin's letter to Congress, JA found out about it much later and he unburdened his fury in a letter wherein he said that Franklin was no doubt jealous of him (haha), and McCullough does make the statement that "the possibility that his own feelins toward Franklin could have the same root cause seems not to have entered his mind." Hahaha

All of it is so amusing and so human!!!!

Our founding fathers were just men with all of mankind's vulnerabilities, weaknesses, strengths and foibles!

I hope to get in again tomorrow for a little while before I begin my journey out of town!

Don't stay away just because some of us are busy. Come in and talk - even if it is to yourself (but I hope not)!

Do all of the Americans in this discussion I wish you a very HAPPY THANKSGIVING, and, Jonathan, you have a lovely day - eat lots of dessert, get fat, (just as we do on this certain day).

Ella Gibbons
November 20, 2001 - 09:07 pm
I have just learned this:

Internet problem

It looks like the Internet is having recurring problems with a major route and access to SeniorNet is being affected although our site itself is not down. At varying times, some of you may not be able to get in to SeniorNet even though others are not experiencing the same problem. I'm sorry for the problem and I hope that it will be remedied soon.


Everyone has been having problems getting on Seniornet today; perhaps that is why no one has opened the door here to tell us their thoughts on this chapter of John Adams.

Come in, come in, the door is open - unless you celebrating early? We have another day yet - and when it is all over I want all of you to come back as the book just gets better with each chapter! Who knows what we will find before we are through. Will we fall in love with JA after all? Will we fall out of love with Abigail? And what juicy tales will we discover about Thomas Jefferson and his friendship with Dear John (sounds as though it could be a soap opera, but it's all true (to the best of McCullough's knowledge!)

Don't miss out on the fun!

later....ella

Malryn (Mal)
November 20, 2001 - 09:34 pm
Hello, everyone. Though I don't have the McCullough book, I am enjoying reading the posts about John Adams here, especially since I was born and grew up in Massachusetts.

The Canadian Thanksgiving was last month. If you'd like to read more about the history of the American Thanksgiving, please click the link below to the American Thanksgiving page in the holiday issue of
Sonata magazine for the arts.

American Thanksgiving

Ella Gibbons
November 20, 2001 - 09:47 pm
MALRYN -that is just lovely, the music, the pictures, thank you so much! Saints and Strangers! Never did I know that! Would you please post that in the Welcome Center and the Library? I think others would enjoy seeing and reading that.

It is past time for me to be tripping off to bed, with thoughts of packing to do tomorrow and this and that, but did want to tell Jonathan that I was quite stunning in that black hat with my black very high heels and a big purse tucked under one arm strolling down the avenue and if Bert Parks would have seen me he would have sang "There she Goes...." - believe me, tis true!

Jonathan
November 20, 2001 - 10:20 pm
Ella...how sweet...you've brought tears to my eyes...it's just wonderful that you should remember how very lonely it will be for me here, while you all are having a wonderful time celebrating Thanksgiving. I've read so many fine, touching, reflective, and, most importantly, mouth-watering posts here in SeniorNet about Thanksgiving in the USA, that naturally I'm envious, along with many Canadians. But shucks, thankfulness and kindness know no borders, so I'll be there with all of you in spirit.

And I'll begin by sharing your happiness with the encouraging news at the doctors.

And with everything else may you have pleasant dreams...

Jonathan

Jonathan
November 20, 2001 - 10:22 pm

Jonathan
November 20, 2001 - 10:36 pm
...and after linking to, and listening to American Thanksgiving, I'm overwhelmed by sentiment. The melody is so familiar. I do believe I've undergone a reincarnation into a feeling of sweet memories...thanks Mal. It's not lonely here at all.

williewoody
November 21, 2001 - 07:45 am
I have not finished reading Chapter 5 yet, but one thought that popped into mind was ---how different education was in JA's time than our schools today. Of course young John Quincy received much of his early education in France and Holland--- but having to take classes taught in Latin ???? All my life I have had trouble learning a foreign language (Spanish and French) but Latin ??? Apparently he did very well, as did his father learning French. I know that the best way to learn a language is to live among people who communicate in the language. But Latin ?????

Louise H
November 21, 2001 - 07:49 am
Hi everybody. Sunny day but cold - but no s---. ELLA, Yes, I've finished JA - I actually spent coin of the realm on it, and it is a treasure of mine now. I go back and re-read the parts people refer to so I will know just where they are in the book.

Ellis' book isn't as thorough, but it is profound, with a deep understanding of the people involved. He does not speak glowingly of Jefferson, as McCullough does not. But he also doesn't speak as glowingly of JA - but he has great respect for him. Here is what he has to say about the relationship between Jefferson and Adams:

"it was the revolution which brought them together---they had worked side by side (and here are details of some of their work )-"the following yeafs Jefferson visited Adams for some weeks in London where, as America's two chief ministers in Europe, they endured the humiliation together when George 111 ostentatiously turned his back on them during a formal ceremony at court; Adams never forgot this scene, nor did he forget the friend who was standing beside him when it happened"

"there were, to be sure, political and ideological differences between the two men, differences that became the basis for the opposing sides they took in the party wars of the 1790s. But as soulmates who had lived together through some of the most formative events of the revolutionary era and of their own lives, Adams and Jefferson bonded at a personal and emotional level that defied their merely philosophical differences. they were charter members of the "band of brothers" who shared the agonies and ecstasies of 1776 as colleagues. No subsequent disagreement could shake this elemental affinity. They knew, trusted, even loved each other for reasons that required no explanation."

I thought this was a beautiful passage. More later. Have a wonderful Christmas, All. Jonathan, have a good day - I think we here would consider you as an "honorary American" fully entitled to go out and have a turkey dinner, and stuff yourself with goodies. Louise

ALF
November 21, 2001 - 08:45 am
I love learning new facts and just learned that Adams put up our flag at the "United States House" which was the first American embassy anywhere in the world.

Ella Gibbons
November 21, 2001 - 09:06 am
Just a brief visit to say Hello Everyone.

On the subject of embassies (thanks ALF, what chapter is that?) I was going to email TIGER TOM, but if he comes in today I'll tell him now. I did receive the book MAKING A DIFFERENCE - AN AMERICAN FAMILY IN PAKISTAN, FRANCE, VIETNAM, LAOS, TURKEY, MALE from my library, but E.G.Ruoff self-published it (good for him) and it is not available in bookstores. Although it looks interesting with pictures and experiences galore and while I think you would enjoy it very much, I'm not sure we can offer it for discussion because of availability. I'll be interested to see if your Library has a copy - interesting that the libraries picked up on it. I think it must be unusual for them to carry a self-published???? Don't know.

Hi LOUISE - We are going to be on our way to London with JA shortly - thanks for those quotes - the two men, JA and TJ, were as opposite as the North and South pole in many respects, but there was a common bond between them also that could not be severed. As you quoted: " they were charter members of the "band of brothers" who shared the agonies and ecstasies of 1776 as colleagues. No subsequent disagreement could shake this elemental affinity." Love that!

HELLO HONORARY AMERICAN! (The fellow is not only talking to himself but now is laughing alone, we are wondering about him!) haha - have fun!

Have a Happy Holiday everyone

BaBi
November 21, 2001 - 10:50 am
Thanks for the notice, Ella, about difficulties getting into SN. I thought it was just my cranky computer at fault.

The thing that astonished me most in this chapter is Congress agreeing that their ambassadors and ministers had to have the approval of the King of France in everything they did, and "be instructed" by the French Foreign Minister. In effect, they were putting the American representatives at the service of the interests of France! I find that incredible.

Another wonder,from the viewpoint of this day and age, is that a youngster of 14 was considered an appropriate and capable candidate to serve as interpreter and secretary on an important government mission to a foreign power. And apparently he was! I have to keep reminding myself that the average life span then was shorter, meaning that the period of childhood was also much shorter. 14 was not too young, then, to begin the work of manhood.

I admire so much JA's close supervision of his sons' instruction, and his on-going practice of being sure they knew his own ideals of what a man, and an American, should be. We don't see nearly enough of that anymore, IMHO. It seems that modern-day fathers generally assume that their sons will understand their principles purely by observation. Or worse, that the school system, or the church, or Mother....anyone but themselves...will teach their sons these things. Is this a fair observation, do you think? ....Babi

TigerTom
November 21, 2001 - 11:55 am
Ella,

Yes the Pilgrims did settle in Leyden, Holland, for several years. Leyden was a port at that time and sat right on the Sea. In this day it is several miles from the Sea and is no longer a Port. It is with good reason the Dutch claim that they "Built their Country." Due to this building Leyden sits so far away from the Sea now. Going to the Library today to see about that book, "Making a Difference." also and going to see if I can find a copy of Cravans there or get one ordered.



About a 14 year old being his Father's Secretary. Back then a 14 year old was considered a Man. He was given the responsibility of a Man. Girls in that day were married off to "Older, Settled Men" when they were 15-16. If one grew up on a farm one pretty much knew what was needed by the time oen reached the age of 14: How plant; how to reap; how to mend fences; how take care of cattle; breeding of Animals; just about everything to do with Farms and Farm life. Girls were the same, they learned, by the early teens, how to Cook, Sew, Make homespun clothing; make candles; canning, take care of the Chickens and other fowl, take care of a kitchen Garden, Help birth a human child; clean and Wash. Both the Young males and Females were, by their early teens, ready for the life they would be living. I guess some got a little Schooling But schooling wasn't considered as necessary as learning how to take care of a Farm and one's family. The young weren't encouraged to remain Chiildren until Voting age. In this day and age our Young people are not allowed the Responsibility needed or to mature fast enough. I have heard some burbble that a 16 year old girl was "just a Baby." In many parts of the world a girl of 16 has been married for some years and will have had four babies by that time. Not surprised that J.Q. was given the responsibility he was. It was expected that he could and would assume the responsibility and carry it our correctly while still learning languages and other things.

ALF
November 21, 2001 - 12:11 pm
Right here in Chapter 5, Ella. pg. 271.

Harold Arnold
November 21, 2001 - 03:21 pm
I didn’t expect to find so many posts this afternoon. I guess I figured everyone would be getting ready for thanksgiving. It is nice to hear from you Malryn and many thanks for the thanksgiving link.. You are welcome to lurk and from time to time, tell us what you think!

Ella I remember from the third grade in elementary School in Houston the teacher telling about the Pilgrims and their sojourn in Holland before sailing for America. I remember her explaining that they came to America because they did not want their children growing up Dutch. Also I think when the pilgrims sailed for the new world, they were heading for Virginia. It was inaccurate navigation that took them to Massachusetts. Would history have been different if they had founded their intended course? In any case I suppose tomorrow would have been a workday. Of course a few years later the Massachusetts Bay Colony was chartered and settled by Puritans. I think this is the colony where Adams’ ancestor settled.

The way JA described the climate in Holland I wonder if maybe that had something to do with the pilgrims leaving? It seems a most unhealthy place in the 18th century. JA came down with a serious illness (page 264- ). It was diagnosed as “Nervous Fever” probably typhus or Malaria. Prior to that time he (and the Adams Family) had been quite healthy.

And Jonathan, I’ll tell you what, you eat up tomorrow on the turkey and dressing and all the trimmings, and I’ll do the same next September when your Harvest celebration comes around. Incidentally, didn’t I see somewhere that the original thanksgiving came in September or October? The original date was not recorded. It would be logical to be earlier in Massachusetts (as in Canada) since it was in celebration of the harvest, which would be finished by September that far north. Only along the lower Sun Belt does the end of November make sense.

Louise H
November 21, 2001 - 05:48 pm
Just a quick note - I am trying to do laundry and read Founding Brothers at almost the same time. But I wanted to say Happy Thanksgiving to all of you, on the Books discussion. Its a great place to visit - I really think some of the most interesting people in Sr. Net are right here. Have a good holiday - back tomorrow night, God willing. Louise

Harold Arnold
November 21, 2001 - 09:00 pm
Williewoody. in Massachusetts the Adams family had a rather good educational opportuiities. JA of course was a Harvard man, and John Q and the other children receive a rather good early education. In the Ambrose biography of Merewether Lewis, “Undaunted Courage” Ambrose describes quite a contrasting educational system. Lewis was born in 1774 in Virginia, a close neighbor of Thomas Jefferson. His family was of the planter class but not quite on the level of the Jefferson’s. His father died when Lewis was a child. And his mother remarried.

In contrast to John Q receiving schooling as a child, Lewis received very little culminating in about a year studying under a local teacher. Here he was exposed to the study of Latin and maybe Greek and a bit of mathematics. After that it was the army. He sas a private in a Virginia Regiment called up for the Whiskey Rebellion. Curiously despite the absence of what we might consider essential early education Lewis became quite well self educated as his scientific reports and maps produced by his Corp of Discovery on their expedition to the Pacific show. John Q, by the standard of any age must have been an exceptionally smart person as has been mentioned here before.

BaBi, I think any government today can demand the removal of ambassadors and diplomatic personnel accredited to it. I don’t think they even need a reason. Didn’t this happen rather frequently during the cold war days? Tiger Tom you might want to comment on this?

Another thing the American representatives to France in the late 1770’s of necessity had to approach the French Court with hats in hand. They were in no position to make demands. This is why I feel Franklin’s approach to the French was the right way. Franklins approach was not to ask for what he knew the French would not gave, to be grateful for what they did give, and be polite, friendly, and helpful when needed. This approach resulted in the French alliance before JA arrived and over the next several years it brought significant aid not the least of which was Naval support. Was it not the French Fleet that made the decisive victory at Yorktown possible?

Louise H. At least once last summer I remember reading “Founding Brothers” one afternoon while doing my laundry at the local Laundromat. I remember it well because there was a lady there also reading the same book. I told hare about our plans for the JA discussion and she seemed interested, but apparently she decided not to participate.

I will be away most of tomorrow for Thanksgiving. I understand Ella may be able to check in during the afternoon, and I will be back in the evening. I wish you all a happy holiday. Don’t eat too much turkey!

TigerTom
November 21, 2001 - 10:20 pm
A country can declare a Diplomatic Person accredited to it from another country as "Person Not Wanted," "Persona Non Grata," or PNG'd as it is known in Diplomatic Circles. this is usually done in the case of people under the Rank of Ambassador. In the Case of an Ambassador The Ambassador's country is quietly asked to withdraw him/her. Getting PNG'd usually happens when someone is caught playing spook. We catch a Soviet doing it and kick him out then the Soviets catch one of our guys doing it and that guy gets kicked out. One side usually matches the other person for person: Five of ours, then five of theirs and vice-versa. No one can be PNG'd without reason. A reason has to be given even if it is false. The games that are played are something else.

Jonathan
November 21, 2001 - 10:55 pm
Louise - turkey is fine; but chowda is better, especially if it comes with thick slices of homemade bread. I could eat it every day, and I do whenever I find myself on the coast. I noticed your recommendation of chowda as being a favorite; and was waiting for an opportunity to tell you how much I like it. And you have a real nice Thanksgiving. I love your posts.

Babi - it does seem astonishing that Congress would send its negotiating commissioners instructions 'to abide by the guidance of the French Foreign Ministry, and thereby becoming a pawn in European power politics...just what Vergennes wanted. But wasn't Adams equally astonished...to the point of 'outrage'. His reaction was swift. He wrote immediately to Foreign Secretary Livingstone to say he would rather resign than follow such instructions, 275. He had no intention of resigning, having fought too long and too hard for American independence, reminding Congress, already in 1780, that 'America has been the Sport of European wars and politics long enough', 235. Instead of resigning he takes it upon himself to tell Livingstone that Congress could not have intended what was stated in the instructions. He was determined to fight on for independence, even if it meant 'troublesome business', and 'another furnace of affliction', 274. He had the support of John Jay, who 'as the descendent of French Huguenots had little liking for the Bourbon Court', 275. Surprisingly, he even brought Franklin around to his view, and, after successful negotiatians, even got the grudging respect of the Comte de Vergennes, who thought about Adams in terms of 'rigidity', 'arrogance', and obstinacy', 253. And who got Franklin to write that nasty letter.

'Thanks to God that he gave me stubborness when I know I am right', 272. Thus Adams about himself...which he then transmuted into perseverence, forcefulness, and determination to serve his country. It runs right through the chapter, doesn't it? It was a good point to bring up.

Williewoody - one more thing about learning a foreign language. Of course you're right about the best way to learn it...among the people who communicate in the language. Isn't that just what John Quincy had available in Paris, in the Latin Quarter?

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving all of you and especially someone with a black hat and high-heeled shoes. Now that's the way I remember elegance...

Jonathan

Jonathan
November 21, 2001 - 11:08 pm
How can a pardoned turkey make a good dinner? I have before me a newspaper with a picture of President Bush, two unidentified gentlemen, and a fine-looking turkey named Liberty, which, it says, has been 'pardoned' and 'will spend the rest of its days on a farm in Virginia'. Surely not at Monticello? Is it part of the tradition?

Jonathan

robert b. iadeluca
November 22, 2001 - 04:38 am
I would like to say a few words related to the apparent conflict between trying to participate in both "John Adams" and "Story of Civilization" due to the starting dates having been moved up.

I had wanted to buy the book and participate in John Adams but, as I explained earlier, due to the pressure from approximately 25 people to not wait another month, I began the discussion of SofC. However, I have been regularly lurking in "John Adams" and, from my point of view, JA is succeeding tremendously!! Many many posts and lots of solid stuff being covered.

I'm pleased for Ella and Harold and everyone participating there. I wouldn't want anyone to think of this as "competition" within the non-fiction ranks. I am primarily a B&L afficianado, and the more activity in JA, the happier I am. I see that there are some who are posting in both SofC and JA and that's good.

For those who are posting in JA but are saying: "Gee, I can't do both and I am losing out on SofC, I say RELAX. The first volume, "Our Oriental Heritage," which we are now discussing has over 900 pages of text and we are currently only on page 60. You can be certain that when you have completed the JA book, there will be plenty more to discuss in SofC and we will be there to welcome you!

So enjoy JA now without worrying about what is going on in SofC and when you have completed that wonderful book, we will "absorb" you into our discussion so seamlessly, you won't even feel as if you had been absent. In that way you will have benefited from both books.

Let us give Thanks on this holiday that we have a Senior Net so all encompassing and a B&L section so large that it can handle TWO great non-fiction books simultaneously, never mind all the other wonderful books we read.

Robby

Ella Gibbons
November 22, 2001 - 12:08 pm
I do think Louise took the bait and swallowed it whole! hahaa Let's pretend, it's fun.

Turkey is at this moment smelling wonderful in the oven (wish I could blow the flavor of it your way, it's marvelous) dressing is also getting nice browned and am in the midst of being one of the helpers in the kitchen.

Just wanted to say Hi to all and have read the comments.

Adams did succeed in getting a loan from the Dutch, he negotiated a loan of $2 million not be sneezed at during those days! In fact, he told Abigail that if he did nothing else in his life, the time he spent in Holland was well worth that. I think so!

What amazes me is that none of these countries in Europe realized the potential of America - Adams did. At one point he says that a connection to America would be very desirable:

"the abundance and variety of the productions of America, the materials of manufacturers, navigation, and commerce, the vast demand and consumption in America of the manufactures of Europe...cannot admit of a doubt that a connection with the United States would be useful to this republic."


Is this the first time we read of anyone speaking of the United States? I don't recall it before, but.....

TIGER TOM: Has any American Ambassador ever been recalled by the American State Dept? I remember Roosevelt recalling Joe Kennedy and remember the reasons for it, but you, no doubt, have some stories to tell. If you have the time, tell us.

Gotta run - the kitchen folk are calling. Oh, what smells!!!

TigerTom
November 22, 2001 - 03:18 pm
Ella,



Yes, there are a few reasons that an Ambassador may be recalled: The usual reason is when the U.S. wants to emphasize that it is unhappy about the way things are going between the two countries. Recalling the Ambassador for "Consultations" to Washington and then delaying the Ambassador's return to Post lets the other nation know of Washington's displeasure. In the case of Joe Kennedy, FDR was fed up with him. There has been a time or two when other Ambassador's have incurred the ire of the President or the Secretary of State. They are usually allowed to resign the post (not from the service, but from the Post that they are accredited to.) This allows the Ambassador to save some "Face" and go gracefully. Occasionaly, the host country will ask for the Ambassador's recall. that will be done quietly for "Health" resons. Career Foreign Service Ambassadors rarely, if ever, get themselves in a position where they are recalled or the host country asked for them to be recalled. It is the Political Appointee's (Big Contributors to political party's) who get into trouble. They generally are wealthy and are used to getting their way and can be quite spoiled when told NO! Unfortunately, some posts: London, Paris, Rome, tokyo, and a few others are so expensive and the Ambassador's allowance falls so short only a independently wealthy person can afford the Ambassadorship. The Ambassador to the Court of St. James (London) usually is out of pocket a half a million dollars a year. Still, there is quite a line of people who are willing to foot bill to be Ambassador in London. Even so, the wealthiest People who have taken that Ambassadorship, have cut down on such expenses as the Ambassador's Fourth of July party for Americans that used to be held in London: TOO MANY Americans were showing up. You would be surprised how one Hot Dog and a Coke can add up when there are tens of thousands who want to attend the party.

Tiger Tom

Ella Gibbons
November 23, 2001 - 06:10 am
IS EVERYONE HAPPY THIS MORNING – OR MISERABLE FROM EATING TOO MUCH? I’m off soon for a walk with my daughter, we feel the need to do that after a wonderful day yesterday, great dinner – the turkey was the best ever - we say that every year, but the one year we can’t forget was when my husband was taking the bird out of the oven and it slipped and the bird landed in the middle of the kitchen floor) - isn’t it funny how you remember the holidays when all the careful preparations went awry! We laughed our fool heads off at the sight - well, some of us did, my husband was furious at the whole incident!

Had you heard that the breeders are fooling with the genetics of turkeys making the breast so big that the birds can’t carry their own weight and so now the scientists of turkey breeding must make their legs stronger – what will we end up with is anybody’s guess!




We are finishing up the most important chapter of the book – to all Americans it should be – for as McCullough puts it , - the new and independent United States of America had arrived on the stage of the world. A momentous feat on the part of Adams, Jay and Franklin. John Jay is an interesting character and amazingly he and JA bonded (the politically correct phrase today) – our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed by Washington. And even Franklin and Adams cooperated together on the Treaty of Paris, and at the end Vergennes of France even gave America a loan!

HAPPY ENDINGS ALL AROUND WOULDN’T YOU SAY?

But no, John Adams is never pleased it seems – what would make the man happy? Shouldn’t he be rejoicing, it all ended well, he thinks he is going home, but he falls again “into a black mood.”

And it was that summer that Franklin described Adams in words that were never to be forgotten and, no doubt, accounts in some way to the fact that history has overlooked John Adams and he was not to be discovered (rediscovered?) until McCullough brings him to light in this biography – 200 and some odd years later!!! I’ll quote Franklin’s words.

”He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.”

I know we have all attempted to excuse this expression by stating all manner of reasons, but the fact remains that this man, who accomplished so much for the country, was our second president, has been overlooked by historians for years and I haven’t yet heard a good reason why! No one has convinced me with evidence that I can understand or believe.

And so I will continue to ask this question throughout the remainder of the book!

ARE WE READY FOR CHAPTER SIX - ABIGAIL IN PARIS

Ella Gibbons
November 23, 2001 - 06:19 am
Thanks, TIGER TOM, for the information, I didn't reallize there was a difference between Career Foreign Service Ambassadors and Political Appointees. I knew, of course, about the Political appointee type as you read about them everytime a new president takes office, but I just assumed that all were appointed, some less publicized than others.

An interesting career and I am wondering how you chose that field or why anyone does.

Louise H
November 23, 2001 - 11:28 am
ELLA, bait??? what bait??? I don't remember any bait!!! It must have been lobster. I love lobster. You offer me lobster bait, and I'll swallow it, hook line and sinker. That's the kind of bait I prefer. Louise

P.S. I am reading the part in Founding Brothers about Washington's Farewell Address. It is wonderful. I think it should be publicized more - but I guess it never will be, as Washington castigated the kind of party politics that puts regional/single party or whatever kind of issues ahead of what is good for the country as a whole. And that isn't a popular view today, sorry to say. Louise

BaBi
November 23, 2001 - 01:08 pm
ABIGAIL TO PARIS!!!! Well, it's ABOUT TIME! ...babi

Ella Gibbons
November 23, 2001 - 03:24 pm
Where is Harold do you suppose?

BABI - you think we are going too slow? How many others would like to go faster through the book? Raise your hands or type a message because we can, you know. It's our discussion, we can do anything we like here.

Of course, poor Abby, terrified of a sea voyage, took forever to get to her destination -

Oh, Louise, I thought, perhaps, you fell for my "Miss America" stunt back there a few posts ago (your post #348), actually it was never even a hope, I'm very plain but we did wear hats in those days, still love hats and heels. I was a young lady during WWII and loved to dress and date those gorgeous guys in uniform, I even wrote letters to a couple of them, married one of them in 1950. Would I be young again? No way, the young don't know how to dress or dance and can they sing along to rap music? I doubt it!

later.....eg

Harold Arnold
November 23, 2001 - 08:39 pm
Ella, Harold got involved in a bit more Thanksgiving today. I’m sorry particularly since tomorrow is my work day at the ITC. I’ll plan on checking in the morning and again in the evening.

Louise H. You bring up a good question for us to watch as we read and discuss the several chapters (coming up soon) covering politics during the first years of the republic. It seems almost eerie how fast parties emerged despite the fact that the key leaders, Washington and John Adams (Federalists), and Thomas Jefferson (Republican) opposed the development of strong party structure. This point should make interesting discussion when we get to these chapters.

In chapter five we read about the military victory at Yorktown that ended the war. McCullough notes that this victory was made possible by the timely arrival of a strong French fleet from the West Indies again illustrating the importance of the French alliance. JA was finally successful in obtaining a loan from the Dutch. The cautious Dutch, made him wait until after the victory at Yorktown before the loan was approved.

JA was one of the U.S. negotiator in negotiating the peace treaty. The truth is JA and the American team got just about every thing that was on their wish list and in doing it pursued points opposed by the French. I don’t think there was any doubt that this treaty was a spectacular success and that JA was promently involved in it.

Jonathan
November 23, 2001 - 10:20 pm
Isn't it curious the way Abigail goes to work getting the ship into shape...just as John did on his first crossing. In his case the captain handled it so well, it should have got him a diplomatic posting, don't you think? And imagine taking one's own cow along, for fresh milk!!!

Louise H
November 24, 2001 - 08:17 am
Good morning, cloudy here, foggy, but mild.

This point is from Founding Brothers, but I think it is relevant when one discusses the relationship between France and the U. S.HAROLD, you bring up good points. JA did get much of what he wanted to get - mostly through patience with the French. Apparently, if I remember right, the other members of the American group in France had received orders from Congress to defer to the wishes of the French govt. officials when making points about what they were to request. JA knew that, had received comminques about it, and decided to ignore it. He believed it was bad advice. And in this, his thinking was in harmony with Washington's views, -these views that never changed in this regard.

Incidentally,. when I started reading Founding Brothers, I skipped over the section devoted to Washington, his beliefs, his insights into the problems "down the road" for this country, etc. as I thought it probably would be rather dull. The emphasis in the chapter is on his sentiments in his Farewell Address. Well, I could not have been more wrong - I have learned more from this book, and this chapter, that I ever expected. These two books are a treasure trove.

I have learned from this chapter, and I am not yet through, what a clear headed, wise, and presentient man he was. Here is what he said about our relations with allies in times of war. He had no illusions about human nature. There was a movement to encourage the French to invade Canada which of course was primarily French. Its American supporters felt this would be a great and easy victory for "us" - we would then have French Canada as part of this country. Washington was firmly against it. The French were Americans providential allies, to be sure, but once they were ensconsed in Canada, it would be foolish to expect them to withdraw. "I feel this would be too great a temptation to be resisted by any power actuated by the common maxims of national policy. "Men are very apt to run to extremes....hatred to England may carry some into an excess of confidence in France. I am heartily disposted to entertain the most favorable sentiments of our new ally and to cherish them in others to a reasonable degree, but it is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind that no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interests and no prudent stateman or politician would venture to depart from it. " In other words, no nation has permanent friends, or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. We should look at all other nations in this light, with friendly feelings, detatched, but considering first and foremost what our interests are in relation to any other country.

In Congress, there were those so in awe of France that they seemed willing to take a subservient role, leaving policy setting, in the matter of the war, to France. JA saw right through this, saw the dangers, and had no intention of letting the French tell him what policies they thought best for this country. He was not prepared to let the new nation become a "little brother" to France. Louise

Harold Arnold
November 24, 2001 - 09:07 am
In Chapter 6, we see “our hero” and his spouse begin (timidly at first) sample the fruits of victory and the access accompanying high diplomatic office to the great and near great of Europe. Abigail despite her fear of sailing comes to Europe with Nabby. I too got quite a kick out of Abigail’s rather rough crossing and her manner aboard the ship.. And then there was the initial cultural shock when she was introduced to Ben Franklin’s lady friend, Madam Helvetius.

But Abigail quickly came to accept and appreciate many aspects of French culture. In particular she came to enjoy the opera and theater. As McCullough put it on page 308, “the more she saw of Paris and French society, the more entranced she was with the ”performance” of French life, and especially the women of fashion, most of whom, she was relieved to find, were nothing like madam Helvetius.” Abigail and madam Lafayette became friends.

TJ was another American newly arrived in Paris with a diplomatic assignment. McCullough uses this chapter to update us on TJ war time service as Governor of Virginia. At one point he had been forced to evacuate Monticello to escape capture by the British who arrived just a short time after TJ had left.

This chapter also illustrates some basic difference between JA and TJ. TJ’s activities in the city suggests an early example of a modern American tourist arriving in the city with a pocket full of credit cards determined to max out every one of them.. He went deeply into debt to finance purchases ranging from books to art items. Even so his financial plight “did not slow his spendthrift ways” (page 320).

Ella Gibbons
November 24, 2001 - 02:12 pm
Harold, I'm sure you are a better judge of these political parties forming than I am, but I got the sense in reading the book that the Republican party of Jefferson's day is our Democratic Party, and the former Federalist Party is our Republican Party, or am I altogether and completely wrong. I do want and need to know this as we get into party politics later.

What a clear and concise post, LOUISE! Thank you ever so much for stating: In other words, no nation has permanent friends, or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. We should look at all other nations in this light, with friendly feelings, detatched, but considering first and foremost what our interests are in relation to any other country.

Yes, that was JA's belief and I think it is still true today, don't you? Do we have any permanent friends in the world? What about England, can you imagine anything coming between our interests and their own?

JONATHAN, what are your reactions to these desires for Canadian territory on the part of some of our past American fathers? AHA, I can hear you thinking - you Americans are still below us Canadians aren't you? Hahaha

Isn't it wonderful how our two countries have actually maintained such a marvelous relationship with each other that we can now joke about these little episodes in our history? Will it ever be so, do you think?

Having just returned home and unpacked, I'm a bit tired and doubt if I will review Chapter Six tonight, but will be here tomorrow sometime.

From your posts I remember TJ's spending habits (and this from a man who kept a record of every little purchase he made); obviously he kept a good record of his debits, but never kept a record of his credits!! What a way to keep books.

Later…..ella

BaBi
November 24, 2001 - 02:52 pm
NO, NO, NO, ELLA! I wasn't referring to the speed with which this discussion is progressing. I was referring to the fact that poor Abigail had been separated from JA for so long, and missed him so terribly, yet circumstances did not permit her to join him. That was why I said "At last!".

The thing that made me grin was Abigail's housewifely attack on that filthy ship, as soon as she was recovered from her illnesses. So much like her husband in tackling whatever problem is in front of her.

My understanding of the original political parties and those of today, is that the Republican Party was founded embracing those 'democratic', 'common people', principles that are today the hallmark of the present Democratic Party. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has swung to the opposite pole and now is seen to represent the more conservative elements of the country. Would any of our certified historians care to confirm or correct that idea?

Being of that school which abhors debt, I was distressed to learn how heedless TJ was in that respect. He appears, in so many aspects of his life, to have been wholly self-indulent. Still, I was glad to see a strong friendship formed in France between TJ & JA. In view of the political scrabbling for position and polite throat-cutting going on at home, JA was in need of a such a friend. You notice how once the crisis of war is over, the country's leadership deteriorates from statesmanship to political hacking? ..Babi

Louise H
November 24, 2001 - 04:55 pm
Babi, yes, TJ didn't worry too much about his debts. According to the book, when he died he left debts that, in today's money, amounted to $l00,000. Also, McCullough tells how in the 1799 - or 1800 election, I forget just when it was held - TJ was behind a series of vicious attacks on JA. He never admitted it, but he was behind the man who wrote them. However, as the years past, that faded from importance, and when they were old men, they were again good friends. Louise

Harold Arnold
November 24, 2001 - 09:23 pm
Yes Ella the Republicans of Jefferson’s day after a few years became the Democratic Party. That party today seems the true continuation of the party. The Federalist Party folded by 1812 and for a few elections in the 18-teens and 20’s all candidates could be described as factions of the Republicans. I did a quick Internet search and found that John Q was from one of these Republican factions and JA himself as a Mass elector cast an electoral vote for one of these Republican candidates. I think Andrew Jackson was the first to style his party by the single word “Democrat.”

In the l840’s and 50”s a new party was organized, the Whigs and was successful in a couple of presidential elections. The Republicans of course were first organize in 1856 on the anti slavery issue and succeeded in electing its candidate for President in 1860 and most of the elections until the 1930’s. I don’t think it proper to say the Republicans of today are a continuation of the Federalists though I suspect most reincarnated Federalists would find some of their platform planks attractive. Today both parties unashamedly proclaim the old messages of Jefferson, and yes Adams too, as their own.

Here is the link that I used in formulating the conclusions given above: Presidential Elections

Jonathan
November 24, 2001 - 11:36 pm
I came in late, not expecting to find any posts...and find a half dozen very substantial posts, touching on a number of issues. Way back when, when I took a course in American history, I resolved to come back some day and get a clearer idea about the early years of the United States as a national entity. Naturally, the question why the Revolution did not sweep all of British colonial possessions in North America interests me very much. I do remember, learning Canadian history, that the united 13 colonies represented a threat for a number of years. It would be interesting to follow up on the 'desires for Canadian territory', if it relates more or less to questions of US national interests, in the then contemporary context.

The whole question of national interests is such an interesting business; and not at all easy to resolve, is it? Dealing decisively with a terrorist attack, and preventing future attacks is something everyone can agree on; but given the situation in the 1790s, with America, as a nation of 3 or 4 million, caught between several superpowers with imperial ambitions...reminds me of those countries during the Cold War who used to play off America against the Soviet Union. I'll leave this up in the air.

The 'Republican' and 'Federalist' qestion has always been considered to have had some relation to the two future main parties, hasn't it? I can appreciate what has already been said about early party development. I get the impression from my reading, however, that the issues of the first dozen years were so unique, constitutional and geographic, for example, rather than social and economic...well, I realize how little I know, I think I'd better sleep on it.

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
November 25, 2001 - 07:20 am
Isn't it suprising, JONATHAN, that these two - so very much alike - were so happy together. Who's the boss of this enterprise, this marriage, when both are very determined in their attitudes. Perhaps it is because they value each other's independence or could it be because they lived apart for such a long time? Hahaha Incidentally, Abby's cow was injured during a "slight breeze" and had to be thrown overboard and what did she drink then? What a lady!

THANK YOU, BABI, for clarifying your post. It is so easy on the Internet to misconstrue statements and put a wrong interpretation on a post and now, of course, I understand exactly what you meant. Abigail's plaintive note to her husband must be quoted here, it is so lovely:

I recollect the untitled man to whom I gave my heart and in the agony of recollection, when time and distance present themselves together, wish he had never been any other. Who shall give me back my time? Who shall compensate to me those years I cannot recall? How dearly have I paid for a title husband


Many political wives, if able to write so beautifully, would duplicate those words I would imagine.

Didn't you find it amusing that Nabby's parents disagreed about traits in their daughter's personality? While Abigail thought her too prudent and reserved, John thought those qualities were the very ones he most prized in his daughter - the two qualities most apt to keep her from attaching herself to any one from the opposite sex.

What a task it must have been for McCullough to decide what to put in this book and leave out, considering that there were over 1000 letters between Abby and John and they both wrote so beautifully. Did he read them all? Are they categorized as to date? How many years did it take him to write this book, I don't believe I've heard or read that, has anyone?

Think of the details in this chapter - did we need to know them all? The house, its decay, the furnishings, who had lived there, the servants and how they behaved, their hairdresser, fashions, the garden, the weather, even the chamberpots!!!!! Was all that necessary - did you read each word?

A few of the details were most interesting and shocking:

In various parts of the city, it was explained, there were designated places with small boxes in which a baby could be deposited. In winter one child in three died of exposure.


That's terrible and Abigail rightly asks if French society can draw a veil over the guilty cause.

However, I find in this chapter that I made very few notes (other than the two noted above) when I first read the book until I got to the meeting with Jefferson (311). And, indeed, I made very few afterwards, perhaps I found this chapter to be less important to the whole of the book than those preceding and subsequent chapters.

How did the rest of you view this chapter?

Thanks, Harold and Jonathan, for your recent posts - Am in a hurry this morning and will address those two later - I think it would take a whole course of study in order to fully understand the formation of the political parties as we know them today.

Louise H
November 25, 2001 - 07:51 am
ELLA, the question of how the two political parties started is a very, very interesting one. I didn't known (or didn't remember) what Harold? wrote about their early history. This is a good subject to go into, altho perhaps it isn't relevant to our current reading.

Have to go and exercise. But I'd rather stay here and write.Louise

tigerliley
November 25, 2001 - 08:36 am
Unfortunatly some things never change..Regarding placing babies in boxes to be found.....some of that very thing is going on presently. Young women and girls are being encouraged to take their newborns to places of safty such as firestations etc. rather than discard them to die.....How very, very, sad. I loved the discription of the home, personal toliet etc., even down to the chamber pots......I for one know exactly what a chamber pot is !!!!!!

williewoody
November 25, 2001 - 08:52 am
ELLA: It might appear on the surface that the Federalists evolved into the Republican Party and the Republicans of Thomas Jefferson eventually became the Democratic Party. However, issues of the times of Adams and Jefferson were far different than those of today. In the early days of our Republic, the issue of States Rights and power was paramount. The Federalists wanted a strong Federal government. Whereas Jeffersons' Republcas were more states rights minded.

Today that is no longer an issue. However, the size of the Federal government is a big issue today. The Republicans want to downsize the Federal Government, while the Democrats want to keep expanding it's powers. That to me would seem to indicate the Democrats of today were more like the Federalists 200 plus years ago. Whereas today's Republicans are more like the Republicas of yesteryear.

Of course, I also believe that Party political views change and evolve over the years, but basically, we seem to have a two party system. Every once in a while a third group of people attempt to establsh a third party, but none have been successful for any extent of time.

Somewhere back in my mind I seem to recall reading that While JA was not opposed to political parties, he was more inclined to believe the political process should be free and open with elections not controlled by political parties. Maybe this was just a dream. Does anyone else recall something like that?

Harold Arnold
November 25, 2001 - 11:11 am
Here are some additional comments on early U.S. political parties, their development and demise during the early years of the Republic. This is based on analysis of material on the Web at Presidential Election History.

1788 McCullough mentioned that there was no popular vote. The several state legislators appointed electors. The results were that Washington received 69 electoral votes, Adams 34 and 10 others received 35 votes. A majority was not required in the Electoral College until the 12th amendment. Adams received the vice Presidency by virtue of his second place finish, a provision also changed by the 12th amendment.

1792 Electoral College result: Washington 132, Adams 79, others 5. Source does not mention a Popular vote count.

1796 Electoral College result: Adams 71, Jefferson 68, Pickney 59, 10 others 76. Source does not mention a Popular vote count. Also source does not identify party affiliation, but we know from McCullough that Adams can now be defined as Federalist, and Jefferson as Republican.

1800 Electoral College result: Jefferson, 73,Burr 73, Adams 65, Pickney 64, and Jay1. Source does not mention a Popular vote count. Jefferson won in the House of Representatives. We know that Adams was Federalist and Jefferson was Republican. I see Burr also another faction Republican.

1804: Electoral College result: Jefferson, Republican 162, Pickney, Federalist 14. Source does not mention a Popular vote count. Note the Federalist Party begins its slide into oblivion. 12th amendment requiring a majority vote in the Electoral College to elect a President becomes comes into effect.

1808: Electoral College result: Madison, Republican 122, , Pickney, Federalist 47, Clinton (also Republican) 6. Source does not mention a Popular vote count.

1812: Electoral College result: Madison Republican 128, Clinton Republican with Federalist backing 89. Source does not mention Popular Vote Count.

1816: Electoral College result: Monroe, Republican 183, Rufus King, Federalist 34. Source does not mention popular vote count. Rufus King was a NY federalist senator and an early opponent of slavery. This is the last time a candidate for President was identified as a federalist.

1820: Electoral College result: Monroe, Republican 231, John Quincy Adams Republican 1. Note in this election John Adams (senior) cast his vote in the Electoral College for Monroe. Again Source does not mention Popular vote count.

1824: Electoral College result: Jackson, Republican, 99 John Quincy Adams Republican 84, others 78. Under the 12th amendment provision requiring a majority to elect a president the issue went to the House of Representatives where John Quincy Adams was elected after Henry Clay threw his support to Adams. Note: here for the first time the Source mentions popular vote count.

1828: Electoral College result: Jackson, Republican 178, and John Quincy Adams 83.

Between 1832 and 1852 A new party, the Whig Party is active. Whig candidates William Henry Harrison and Zachry Taylor won the presidency for single terms in 1840 and 1848. Nothing is heard from the now long dead Federalist Party.

In 1856 a new party the Republicans appeared. In 1860 theirs candidate, Lincoln won the presidency and for the remainder of the 19th century and the first 30 years of the 20th century most often elected their candidate to office. After 1856 the Whig Party withered and died.

Based on this history, I agree the current Democratic Party is the direct continuation of the old Jeffersonian Republican party of the 1790’s. I do not see the same continuation of succession from the Federalists to the Republican Party of today. There was the quarter century break after the death of the Federalists and births of the Republican Party. Even so I am sure that many of the old Federalists if still alive in 1856 would have voted for the Republican candidate and even today I agree that on many issues the Republican positions would be found compatible to reincarnated Federalists. Also as I said in my earlier post, both parties today are unashamed in claiming Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and the Rest of the founding fathers as their own.

Jonathan
November 25, 2001 - 10:42 pm
Ella - I love the detail in Chapter 6. I feel that McCullough has really succeeded in permitting Abigail to show herself from many angles; and you picked several good aspects yourself. The parental disagreement over Nabby's personality, ending with that reminiscing: 'Indeed, she is not like her Mamma. Had not her Mamma at her age too much sensibility to be VERY PRUDENT'. Sensibility with an 18th century meaning. The total effect of McC's selections from the letters prevents a very pleasing, interesting Abigail. With the picture he draws of her with the selection, he should have included the Mather Brown portrait of Abigail in his book. It was done while she was in England. Could someone find it?

Overcoming her dread of crossing the ocean. Quarrelling with Mr Green on the ship (did you notice the reason? 295). Recognizing 'the scenes from a favorite novel', Sterne's Sentimental Journey, on the road from Calais to Paris. Sentimental as well as sensible!

And how well McC gives Abigail a chance to express her outrage over French ways, and especially over the dreadful Paris scene. She finds plenty of reasons to be shocked. The 6000 children delivered to the orphanages; the 52000 unmarried females enrolled at the notary office. And it's all about the stench! like the chemise of Madame Helvetius, Cher Papa's 'lady' friend. Voila, Perfume. Terrible, too, what Abigail has to say about the Church. 'Thousands of these miserable wretches perish annually with disease and poverty, whilst the most sacred of institutions is prostituted to unite titles and estates'.

Then, just when one starts shaking one's head over this moralizing New England matron from Braintree, with her Calvinistic views, who has never travelled farther than Haverhill, she displays the fine, receptive indulgence of the new and strange which her husband showed at the unfamiliar church service in Philadelphia ten years earlier. Almost as if, to paraphrase, She came to criticize, but stayed to praise. Came to deplore; but stayed to adore. Paris will do that to you.

As for the house, yes, I would like even more detail. And I suspect it could get quite interesting. Forty or fifty rooms, near the Bois de Boulogne, once the 'country villa of two extravagant, scandalous sisters, the Demoiselles Verieres'. 'A fountain that no longer worked, and a summerhouse, beautiful in ruins'. How sad. How enchanting. And all for a very low rent, as John informed Cotton Tufts (what a name). I believe it was he who advised Abigail to speculate with that land purchase in Vermont.

Like Louise...'I'd rather stay and write'...but I gotta go...

Jonathan

Deems
November 26, 2001 - 05:59 am
Here's a link to the Mather Brown painting of Abigail Adams that Jonathan mentions:

http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozpictures/pc200379.html

Maryal

Ella Gibbons
November 26, 2001 - 07:00 am
Hi Louise - Oh, good for you, exercising. How often and how strenuously do you exercise? We all, of course, should - especially right after that Thanksgiving feast. We ate turkey three days straight, which isn't bad for one, but it's all the trimmings that went with it that was sinful! I must get back to my exercising very soon!.

Is this being done in America, TIGERLILEY - " Young women and girls are being encouraged to take their newborns to places of safty such as firestations etc. rather than discard them to die...." Tell us what you know about it, will you please? Why aren't social workers involved in getting these children adopted.? (Incidentally, I know all about outhouses having used them in my early childhood, but we didn't need the chamberpots, we just ran outside in the dark as no one wanted the job of emptying them - haha)

Am so glad you enjoyed all the descriptive narrative that McCullough used in the book about Abby and John's homes in Paris, etc. McCullough aimed to please everyone in this book - which is what a good writer does, of course.

Thanks, WILLIEWOODY, for your views on how the political parties are evolving - I remember in our discussion of Ellis' AMERICAN SPINX we discussed Jefferson's fear of the Federal Government becoming too strong. Certainly one way in which he and Adams differed - let's talk about those differences as we progress through the book.

And Harold thank you very much for that history! It cleared up a few points for us.

One of our themes ( mentioned in the heading) is to examine the relationship of JA and Franklin over time and I think we have already discussed this at some length. Adams respected and admired Franklin from his early days as a student at Harvard; considered him a good man, a great man of science, but his opinion changed radically when the two of them had to work together in Paris - he then describes Franklin as aloof, shipshod, lazy and neglectful of his duties.

Would it be fair to say that Franklin's best days were behind him? After all, he's an old man by the time he is called upon to serve as his country's emissary in Paris.

What's your opinion? Is there more to add to this story? Did Franklin serve the colonies well in Paris?

Ella Gibbons
November 26, 2001 - 07:05 am
Hey, Maryal and Jonathan! We are all posting together, must stop and read what you are saying!

Ella Gibbons
November 26, 2001 - 07:17 am
Thanks, Maryal - a stern picture of Abigail and a younger Abigail than was in the book I think. But artists rarely show a smile, it seems to me!

GOOD, JONATHAN, your delight in the details makes me want to read them again - I missed something - I must go back!

But I did like your phrase: Almost as if, to paraphrase, She came to criticize, but stayed to praise. Came to deplore; but stayed to adore. Paris will do that to you.

Now you brought up something that is a yearning in my soul. I want to go to Paris, I want to see everything in Paris and France! I've longed to go for years and years and my sister and I were going to go last spring and her husband became ill. Darn! But I'll get there one day, maybe next year.

I will not deplore, I will adore- that's very clever, Jonathan!

Thank you both -

later, ella

jane
November 26, 2001 - 07:17 am
Yes, Ella...safe havens for newborns has become a hot topic in many states in an effort to protect newborns from abandonment/death. We have a 17 yr old on trial for abandoning her newborn into a snowpile in a very small Iowa town.

Here are a couple of links. The Social Worker angle isn't working since these girls will not contact these people. In many cases they've kept the pregnancy a secret.

American Academy of Pediatrics link

Grant Award Winner for safe haven for newborns.

Now, back to lurking!

š jane

BaBi
November 26, 2001 - 10:14 am
Good morning, all. A lot of catching up to do...couldn't get in yesterday.

Jonahan, if you re-read that section in which Abigail refers to the "sacred institution....prostituted to unite estates and titles", you will see she was referring to the "sacred institution" of marriage, not to the church.

The reference....(who made it?)...to the usage of perfume was so accurate. Bathing was considered to be weakening; too much was bad for the health! Under all that perfume (and the ladies were skilled at concocting their own) was a whole lot of B.O.! We today have really no conception of how bad the stink was in the cities of that day. I doubt if we could tolerate it for even a day without a strongly scented handkerchief in front of our sensitive noses.

It was also true that you did not generally see a smiling portrait. It was not the fashion. Stern and/or haughty was more the theme. The first artist to paint a portrait of a smiling subject probably created quite a furor. Anybody here knowledgeable on that subject? ...Babi

Harold Arnold
November 26, 2001 - 10:53 am
One last point concerning the transformation of the 18th century Republican Party into the Democratic Party is the party identification of President Andrew Jackson. The Web site I cited in my last post had identified him in the election of 1828 as “Dem-Rep.” Four years later when he ran for a second term Jackson was identified by the one word Democrat. In later election the identification “Republican” disappeared entirely until 1856 when a new abolitionist party unrelated to the earlier group appropriated the name.

Williewoody is certainly right in calling attention in his message #380 to the vast difference between issues facing the Jeffersonian Republican Party in the early days of the Republic and the issues important to the present day successor , the Democratic Party. I agree completely and expect this is the reason why it is so easy and so reasonable for all political parties today to claim all of the founding fathers as their own,

I enjoyed Jonathon’s post #382 concerning Abigail’s reaction to Paris. I think he hit many of the highlights that were noticed by me. One other point I might add concerned the servants employed in the Adam’s Paris household. I was surprised to hear of such militant attitude of the servants toward the division of labor in pre-revolutionary Paris. “One servant would not touch what belonged to the business of the other.” Hence the cook would not wash dishes and the upstairs maid would not do the downstairs. The Adams’’ household employed eight, a far cry from the fifty employed by the British Ambassador and the seventy-five serving the Spanish Ambassador’s house. But Abigail and Nabby had Pauline, their own live-in hairdresser. And I got a particular kick out of the frotteur whose duties included both sweeping and waxing of floors. Apparently the “frotteur’s union was not a strong one, as somehow the emptying of the chamber pots was his responsibility also. Were I musically inclined and driven to the writing of the Musical, “A Yankee’s Wife In Paris” I would include a comic dance scene featuring the livery costumed frotteur with the brushes strapped to his feet danced over the brightly polished floors of the Adam’s drawing room.

Thank you Maryal for the link to the Mather Brown portrait of Abigail. Mather Brown is another American born painter who spent his career in England. He was not as successful as Benjamin West, but had enjoyed considerable fame. He painted Thomas Jefferson in addition to the Adams family, and even George III and other members of the Royal Family. I think the painting from the link does pretty well in reproducing the fabric and lace in Abigail’s dress, but her face expression to me does not picture the subject at her best. Our San Antonio Museum of Art has a few portraits by lesser-known American painters practicing in the states at that time. These are far inferior to the works of the Americans practicing in England.

Elizabeth N
November 26, 2001 - 03:38 pm
Emptying chamber pots was not the chore one might think. My grandmother had a big old house on the shore and during the summer when she had so many overnight visitors, we were asked to use the outhouse during the day and the chamber pots during the night (thus reducing the stress on the household septic tank). The pots were beautifully decorated, heavy pottery afairs with handled lids; when not in use the lid was on and I presume it was no great task to carry it away for disposal, rinse it out with bleach solution and return it to under the bed. That's what was under the beds in those days--not Communists! ........elizabeth

Ella Gibbons
November 26, 2001 - 04:13 pm
Did all of you read those articles Jane brought in (THANK YOU, JANE!) I quote from both:
"What we're trying to do is keep babies from being left in dumpsters, in the woods, or in public bathrooms," said John Tyson, Jr., Mobile County District Attorney. "Some new mothers are so overwhelmed by fear or shame that they cannot take care of their babies. A Secret Safe Place for Newborns gives them - and their babies - a place to go."


"The mother or father would not be subject to prosecution if they deliver their baby, unabused and less than six days old, to a suitable location and promptly notify an appropriate person of the baby's location."

What has happened to American families that this goes on! I'm ashamed of us, they are part of us! Babies, newborns!!! Where are the grandparents, the uncles, aunts! Why? Illegitimate babies have always been with us, but I thought the stigma of being pregnant without marriage had disappeared.

Hahaha, BABI, the stench of B.O.! I asked once in a museum how the ladies did without deodorants back in those days and she said they wore little pouches of fragrances next to their bodies so they would smell nice - that on top of petticoats and bustles and flounes - even in hot weather! But they used powder didn't they? Cornstarch????

HAROLD AND WILLIEWOODY - you two are assigned the task of remembering all that political party history, because there is no way I can! I'm one of those that are always wondering what I've forgotten, my brain cannot hold it all, particularly at this time of the year when I'm getting ready for a trip, plus Christmas! There will be all kinds of unexpected incidents in my life before this month is over.

AND INTO WHAT MUCK-A-MUCK HAS OUR CONVERSATION DETERIORATED TO - WE ARE DISCUSSING THE PROS AND CONS OF OUTHOUSES, SEPTIC TANKS AND CHAMBER POTS NOW!!!

But what shore, Elizabeth, did your grandmother have this huge house on with the lovely chamberpots beneath the beds? And did you empty them when you visited? It sounds as though you've had experience and it wasn't that unpleasant???? Hmmmmm

JONATAHAN - I went back to the page you gave and know now why Abby disliked Mr. Green and I would agree heartily with her - "Merit, not titles gave a man preeminence in our country" and TAKE THAT TO HEART all ye British noblemen!! JONATHAN - are there titled Canadians - did that carry over from England? I saw something similar on a billboard today whilst out shopping. It said "Attitude is more important to success than aptitude." And that fits in nicely with Abby's passage that she copied out which noted that "association with cheerful people being good for the health."

WE ARE ALL CHEERFUL PEOPLE IN THIS DISCUSSION - SO I INTEND TO STAY HERE FOR THRE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR LEST I GET CRANKY OVER ALL THE EXTRA WORK INVOLVED IN CHRISTMAS - I NEED CHEERFULNESS - SO PLEASE OBLIGE!!!! haha

Ella Gibbons
November 26, 2001 - 06:18 pm
We've been warned about new virii that is coming through email; some with no text but just an attachment. Be aware! Update your anti-virus program.

Ella Gibbons
November 26, 2001 - 06:37 pm
Can you see in this chapter the character of Jefferson emerging and the ways his personality traits are the same as Adams and the ways they differ and in what ways the circumstances of their lives collide?

I've put a new question in the heading for your consideration as we get more into Jefferson's life.

Harold Arnold
November 26, 2001 - 08:30 pm
I received a warning Friday of a virus coming under the subject, "Cool Stuf." Remember Rule One: Never, never open an attachmment, even if it comes from a trusted friend unless it is expected. Don't forget that standard virus procedure is to send the virus to every one in the victim's address book. If you get an unexpected attachment from a known friend write first to be sure it is safe.

Jonathan
November 26, 2001 - 11:10 pm
Harold, I'm reading your posts, as well as williewoody's, with a lot of interest, as they pertain to the beginnings of the party system during the nineties and the early years of the 19th century. What a lot of political turmoil. How about calling it the embryonic stage of American democracy, with the Constitution as its stem cell? It's interesting that you should point out that both major parties claim the early presidents as their own. I would find it even more interesting to hear some thoughts on the form which US democracy took on during that period, and later. For example, to make it work, how much is constitutional, and how much political. As for 'party' strife, didn't John Adams attempt to stay above it?

Ella...no titles allowed. When the Richard Rosenfeld review, The Adams Tyranny, was introduced, you asked for some information on Rosenfeld. It's possible I may have missed a post with info. I don't think so. Anyways, here's an About the Author note I found: 'Born in Boston in 1941, the son and grandson of printers, R N Rosenfeld is an independent scholar who lives in Chestnut Hill, Mass. He holds degrees from Yale, Columbia, and Boston U, is a Councillor at the American Antiquarian Society, and is an Associate Fellow at Yale's Timothy Dwight College.' It looks like he's something of a maverick historian; but he has published an amazing book, American Aurora (1997), a 900 page look at the fierce politics of the 1790s. It looks very readable. Rosenfeld 'has embraced as his own', it says in a foreword, 'the outrage of the men who saw the republic threatened by the thrust for power of those entrusted with running it'.

Maryal, thanks for the link to the portrait of Abigail. Can you find another, for comparison purposes? The portrait of Madame de Sorquainville, by Perronneau, 18th c. It hangs in the Louvre. I have to admit to a very strong liking for the portrait. All my life. Seeing the Mather Brown portrait, I was convinced immediately; the Perronneau is Abigail with a smile. But it's not my love affair with an 18th century portrait in the Louvre that I want to talk about; but the slight smile playing about Madame's lips, and the lack of a smile in Abigail's portrait. Ella has her looking stern, and BaBi has that as a mode and wonders about it in a general way...why no smiling portraits.

I'll agree that Abigail looks stern; but I find her very attractive, nevertheless. Then again, Akers, who put the portrait on the cover of his bio, has this to say: 'A new portrait confirmed the strength of Abigail Adams' mind and spirit...Abigail at forty -"a good likeness" according to Nabby - was striking. The large, assertive eyes dominated all else. Her face radiated confident firmness, and the tight-lipped smile of the young bride in the 1776 pastel had given way to a pleasant earnestness (!). Handsomely but not ostentatiously dressed, she was a model of her own standards of genteel republican womanhood'.

On the other hand it's worthwhile to speculate why she might look stern, as an indication of how well we've gotten to know her. Any ideas? Some which come to mind, just meant to provoke some from the rest of you. She's forty; and at that age life is a serious business. She's the mother of four, whose character development, education, and future are of the highest concern. Her husband...well, it was his health which brought her to Europe. And, while one could not say that his career was going nowhere, he does seem at a loss, doing little more than go to the office in the morning, and, by his own admission, hardly earning what he describes as amounting to only 'a sprat in a whales's belly'. Now, had Abigail lived in France, like Madame de Sorquainville...it just occurred to me, perhaps the secret of the Mona Lisa lays in da Vinci's experimenting with the mode.

BaBi, I'm much obliged. Thanks for pointing out my egregious error. I was pursuing a line of thought, made difficult by the welter of detail. Suffice it to say that I can explain it to myself; but that does not make it any the less imbecilic. May Abigail's spirit forgive me.

Jonathan

Harold Arnold
November 27, 2001 - 09:38 am
Jonathan I like your analogy comparing early American democracy with modern biology terms such as “embryonic” and as being the “stem cells” from which other concepts developed.

You ask how much is Constitutional, how much is political? Perhaps your “stem cell” analogy can shed light on this question. One of the first principals of US constitutional law is that the Constitution is an evolving document changeable with the times. A principal instrument of evolutionary change is the Supreme Court and its ability to re-interpret the constitution. This makes change, even drastic change possible with out the need to actual amend the writing of the constitution.

The Supreme Court Authority to interpret the constitution is not expressed directly in the written constitution though it is strongly implied. An early case in which the Supreme Court asserted this power was Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803)). John Marshall who you may recall was appointed by John Adams during the closing months of his administration authored the decision of the Court. This appointment may well have been one of the most important contributions of JA to the future development of the United States. (Incidentally, JA had earlier made a significant contribution to the form of the US Constitution in1787 while still in England when he authored his paper, "In Defense of The Constitutions of Governments of the United States.” Though JA in England took no direct part in writing the US constitution, his paper seems to me to have had substantial influence on the form of the Constitution as it emerged from the convention.)

In one respect the U.S. constitution was no great original creation. Was it not a model of the English system as it had evolved in the late 16th/early 17th centuries? Was not the Constitution a written scenario of the English System made democratic by substituting the President elected for a limited term for the hereditary King? Of course there were other unique features including many important ones such as the independent judiciary, but the powers of the democratically elected President during his term were and are immense, and in my view quite comparable to the King in the late 17th century.

Ella Gibbons
November 27, 2001 - 10:31 am
JONATHAN, it does appear that Rosenfeld has credibility as a historian, or at least is not entirely ignorant of the subject. How seriously should we take the man? Non, non, non, let's not go there again, been there, done that. We are into another chapter and taking on Jefferson, let's not forget, though, that McCullough should be questioned when we see or think we see a fallacy. Merci beaucoup, Jonathan for the info. (I'm trying!)

"Assertive eyes - confident firmness" - there you just said it all in your Post #395. She was assertive (bossy?-maybe), firm (strict?-maybe). Some men love that in a woman, need it - need the mothering! Haven't all you women in this discussion noticed that? This is all speculation, of course, but he never said much about his mother (one of the few people he never talked about much, although he wrote at great length of his father), perhaps Abigail gave him something he lacked in his mother. We know Abby loved him, but we don't know the ways in which she loved him. I think there's a difference. We know she took care of all business matters allowing him freedom to pursue his career, his adventures, his friendships.

So speculate - what kind of a woman was she? Did she have any friends outside of family?

That's a wonderful explanation, Harold, particularly your last paragraph of the origins of our Constitution, - Was not the Constitution a written scenario of the English System made democratic by substituting the President elected for a limited term for the hereditary King? With the exception of the Judicial Branch, as you stated.

Our ties to England (and Canada) are so close that it is hard to imagine a scenario where the two might encounter difficulties leading to force of any kind.

Back to the book - does it seem to you that McCullough deliberately sets out to point the differences and similarities between the two men immediately. Neither man saw much of the revolutionary war; Jefferson entertained POW's, which would have been unthinkable for Adam; Jefferson had no interest in military matters; whereas Adams was Chairman of the War Board; both loved their homes and family and both abhorred the outspokenness of French women.

-------Again we see a member of the Continental Congress, James Madison, viewing JA as a vain and arrogant man, judging him from the letters he sent to Congress and upon hearing that JA was in Paris representing the colonies, TJ wrote to Madison that he was fearful of how Adams might behave and "likened him to a poisonous weed."

Controversial isn't it? However, TJ also points out that our hero is honest, has a sound head and integrity.

But I want to hear all of your opinions of Thomas Jefferson in France - we have all three of our protagonists in the same city, isn't it interesting?

A tout a l'heure (if only I could pronounce it! Haha)

BaBi
November 27, 2001 - 12:36 pm
Jonathan, from reading your posts, I am confident Abigail would not only forgive you, but would happily correspond with you.

The question posed: 'would we choose John Adams or Thomas Jefferson for a friend'? I would have to choose John Adams, absolutely. Tho' TJ is undoubtedly a charming man, an "renaissance"-type man, even a genius, he is hugely self-centered. Even more to his discredit at a friend, is the evidence of his having turned against those he has seemingly befriended, attacking them secretly (as he did JA, both before and after their apparent great closeness in France. JA is honorable, honest, compassionate to those in need and true to his friends. And his mind, while not as broad in it's interests, is as keen as TJ's.

Are we discussing the London chapter yet? I wanted to point out how delighted I was with Abigail's total lack of awe in re. royalty and court pomp. ...Babi

Elizabeth N
November 27, 2001 - 01:54 pm
I see Abigail as a soldier in the Great Revolution--consciously a soldier, side by side with her husband as he played his role. She was brave, often farming and caring for her family while hearing guns firing, later, frequently seeing British soldiers pass by the house. She bravely, for the cause, assumed total responsibility for her family, farm, local charities, accounts and prodigious letter-writing, and most of all she accepted long, long separation from her dear friend, her fellow soldier. ........elizabeth

Deems
November 27, 2001 - 03:10 pm
Madame de Sorquainville by Perronneau may be viewed here

http://www.louvre.fr/anglais/collec/peint/rf1937/peint_f.htm

And she is even smiling!

As to why many of those older portraits don't have smiles, I can think of several reasons--when one poses for a painting, one would have great difficulty maintaining a smile for hours and hours (have you ever smiled so long that your cheeks ached?)

And two, it is difficult, I would think, to paint a smile, one that looks like the smile of the individual and doesn't turn into a smirk.

Think of all those old photographs of all those grim people. Not many smiles there either.

Maryal

Louise H
November 27, 2001 - 04:13 pm
ELLA, a quick response to your question about whether Franklin was a good, wise, successful representative of our country in its dealings with France.

I can only go by what I remember of that chapter, and I remember that JA was shocked by what he interpreted as Franklin's laziness, and failure to take care of details. Also, he disliked Franklin's free and easy way with women, not bothering to hide his affairs with various french women. As a strict N.E. Yankee JA would be very disapproving of what he would call licentiousness.

But Franklin might have been right for the job at that particular stage of the negotiations. We have to remember that our country was not respected by the French for any admirable qualities we might have. They regarded us - I believe - as rather a novelty, which they found amusing to study. They would have been put off by JA's honest, and ethical approach to various matters. I think they probably regarded him as stiff, narrow minded, rigid in his views. But Franklin was able to present himself as a certain kind of character. A simple frontiersman, no pretense to elegance or sophistication. At the same time he amused them with his good humor and easy affability, his relaxed approach to his interaction with them.

They were won over by this, and "softened up" - I think they perhaps underestimated Americans, and gave JA enough room so that he could practice his style of diplomacy quietly. He went ahead, kept his eyes on what was best for this country, and took advantage of any chance he had to advice the cause of his country. It may be that the French diplomats were so busy being charmed by Franklin, they didn't pay close enough attention to what JA said and did, and he was able to bring about at least some of the goals he was sent there to effect.

Do others agree with me? I can't base my opinion on anything but my feelings in the matter. I'm open to others views on this.

ELLA, I try to walk on the treadmill three times a week, for 15 to 20 min. which isn't much but is better than nothing. I prefer to walk there than outside - which is beautiful, trees, lovely landscape, et. but uneven terrain, too many boulders, too much distraction. So I stick to the treadmill. I am going to try to increase the time spent but it seems I always have so much to do, I can't spare any more time, which is rediculous - I'm retired, for pete's sake!! Louise

TigerTom
November 27, 2001 - 09:23 pm
Franklin, while in Paris, was NOT a young man. He was, however, a very respected and famous man, even in Europe. His experiments in electricity and other things made him widely known. He was generally feted where ever he would go. Franklin may have tried to present himself as a simple Frontiersman (which I doubt) but would have hardly got away with it. Flirting with the Ladies was a way of life in France at that time and was expected. Nothing too serious about it. Franklin wasn't stupid, he knew the ways of French life and how the French did things. They didn't hurry as were put off by those who did. Franklin was very good at what he did which was to represent the Colonies. He traded on his fame and charm. So he had an eye for the Women? That didn't keep him from doing what he was sent to France to do. Adams had his way and Franklin his. I would prefer to have Jefferson as a Friend also Franklin before Adams. I would have been intimiated by all of them. They were all very intelligent people. I wonder if Jefferson was that aloof or cold. It may be that he was so intelligent that the common mind grated on him, badly, and that it was difficult for him to be polite to people who bored Hell out of him and took up his time. Adams who was also quite intelligent was able to hide his annoyance a bit better. Franklin probably could overlook things like that, which made him much more diplomatic.

Tiger Tom

Louise H
November 28, 2001 - 07:43 am
TIGER TOM, I thinkMcCullough says that the French regarded him as a simple backwoodsman, which of course he was not. But he played the part, with coonskin cap and all. The French had no objection to his dalliance with women, that fitted in with their life stye.

Adams probably seemed stiff to them. But he was very polite, even to rude messages from the French diplomats. I will go back and re-read the part about Franklin and JA and their different reception by the French. JA and especially his wife, did love French music, opera, dance, etc. once they got used to them, but they disliked the lack of cleanliness on the part of the French - I think either JA or Abigail mentioned that the elegantly dressed men and women smelled. Not always, but once would have been too much for the standards of the Adams-both.

I think Franklin was able to charm them by being as casual and of course by his reputation, and by his "simple backwoods man" facade. As I said, he probably smoothed the path for Adams and ?Madison - can't remember who the third negotiator was. Louise

Harold Arnold
November 28, 2001 - 09:02 am
Louise H, I agree with much of what you wrote in message #401, down to and including, "Franklin was able to present himself as a certain kind of character." However, I don't really see Franklin presenting himself as a "simple Frontiersman." True, I suppose he did have in comparison to most European diplomats of the day a certain simplicity that did make him stand out as something of a character in the eyes of the French. But in addition to his world reputation as a scientist as Tiger Tom has already pointed out, he had lived in London for some 15 years before the revolution. He was already well known and well established in European society. I don't see much of the coonskin cap, Daniel Boone type in him nor do I see where he tried to present himself in that manner.

I see the French alliance and the French aid that contributed so much to the American victory primarily as the fortunate combination of circumstances that appeared to make the giving of such aid favorable to, or at least to appear favorable to the best interests of France. Under the circumstance the Franklin style of negotiations appear well suited to obtaining the desired result. In contrast, JA’s approach appeared to irritate the French and while I suppose they would have acted in their own self-interest regardless of who was on the American side of the negotiating table, I doubt that JA’s approach would have got any more aid than Franklin obtained.

Note also that in negotiating of the British peace treaty, Franklin pretty much accepted the JA tough stance and the American team that included both Franklin and JA got just about everything they hoped for. Again I think the British were responding to their own self-interest, which at the time was to make peace and untangle themselves from the rebellious Americans. It was an astute move on their part. Within 25 years they had defeated the French under Napoleon and were for the next century the leading nation in the world.

Louise H
November 28, 2001 - 12:05 pm
HAROLD, I think you are probably right. Franklin may not have deliberately preseented himself as a simple backwoods ;man, but here is what McCullough has to say about Franklin - page 194, part 11, chapter 4 (I think)--some at least of what he thought of Franklin. "Franklin was loved for his sober, homespun look, the fur hat, the uncurled,unpowdered hair,the spectacles on the end of his nose, and widely believed to be a Quaker, a misunderstanding he made no effort to correct. He was seen as the representative American, the rustic sage from the wilds of Pennsylvania (apart from the fact that he had lived sixteen years in London) and he agreeably played the part Everything about him announced his simplicity and innocence" observed an adoring French historian of the day.

McCullough judges him favorably, I think, but like Jefferson, he did not "measure up" I think, in McCullough's eyes, to the classic, noble virtues, so praised by the early Romans, which were JA"s guiding rules. Louise

Jonathan
November 28, 2001 - 02:35 pm
Ella, this phrase might help if you want to write home, including SN, and we'll send some personel to get you out, or supply you with linguistic cues to get you out of any situation. And here's another tip: don't be unduly alarmed, when you get to Paris, by an officiously gruff gendarme. Arrest is not necessarily imminent. He may just, as in my case, be telling you to stay off the grass. When I started laughing at his idea of grass, then it started getting serious... But it shouldn't come up. You already sound like a native.

Maryal, thanks for the link to Madame de S, and the comments about facial expressions in portraiture. The more one thinks about it, the more interesting it gets. I'm so taken by both portraits that I'm going to try to work them into a wallpaper. It would seem that the serious look is more expressive of the individual's character and identity and fate. Out of curiousity I flipped through a catalogue published by the National Portrait Gallery (England) with its over two hundred faces. Not one smile. George III looks downright unhappy. And hard to amuse Victoria was obviously not prepared to unbend for the painter. On the other hand, our Queen Mother, at 101, is always smiling for the photogarapher. And how about the Bronte sisters?

With Abigail in France, it might be worth mentioning that as a letter writer, par excellence, she has been compared with Madame Sévigné. An 'epistolary hero' (Abigail), whose letters contain 'the best and fullest account of the 50-year period between 1765 and 1815 by an American woman.

And she can smile. As she does in that advice to her husband in 1776: 'If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation'. The smile in that shows as much character as the annoyance she shows with Mr Green, whose only interest in her was as the wife of John Adams. And smiles again remembering how much the other passengers enjoyed the conversation. She played a more important role in John Adams' life than Jefferson, or Franklin, or anyone else. 'An estimable woman', in Jefferson's words. A correspondence with her would be a real pleasure and a stimulating affair.

But if she looks stern, it's not half as stern as the USA has looked to the world the last two months. Thanks, Harold, for what you said in just three or four paragraphs about a crucial aspect of the US constitution, the matter of adaptibility to ever-changing circumstances. The terrorist attack AND the electoral problem of the last election are certainly putting the evolutionary, and checks and balances aspect, to the test. What a strange, fateful twist, that an inconclusive election result should determine the one to preside over what looks more and more like a momentous event in US and world history. I find it momentous that the US is establishing such a geopolitical and strategic presence in the heart of Asia. With Russia's blessing, no less! And China's concern. And Saddam's dismay. And Pakistan's reassurance. And the women's freedom movement's exaltation (but talk of a burka to bikini revolution is premature, I believe). And Osama wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia!!!

For the immediate short term (?), apropos our discussion, do we have an imperial president in the making? As Adams tried to be?? Here's something from my newspaper, the Globe and Mail: 'What a difference a war makes. In two short months, George W Bush has convinced Congress to grant him war-making powers, has pushed through powerful crime-fighting legislation that brushes the limits of constitutional freedoms, has reorganized entire government departments by fiat, and has unilaterrally decided to slash America's ballistic missile capability, thus far without even bothering to write up a treaty. He will, in all likelihood, shortly sign off on an economic stimulus package that favors Republican tax breaks over Democratic spending. And he has granted himself the power to bypass the judicial system by creating military tribunals with drumhead powers that can try any suspected terrorists he chooses to send there.'

What the 19 aequidists set in motion! And what an opportune time to take a look at a democratic, constitutional political system at the time of its birth.

Jonathan

BaBi
November 28, 2001 - 03:25 pm
Thanks for the Madame de 'S... portrait, Maryal. I took an immedate liking to her for the good humor and amusement evident in her face. It would have been a travesty to paint such a lady as grim and unsmiling!

I was most gratified, after posting my preference for John Adams as a friend,to reach p. 349 and find this quote from Jonatha Sewall: "Adams has a heart formed for friendship, and susceptible to it's finest feelings. He is humane, generous and open, warm in his friendly attachments, though perhaps rather implacable to those he thinks his enemies."

I was also delighted by Sewall's comments on what was needful to "shine" in the royal Courts, and think it may reflect what has alreay been discussed about the qualifications of Franklin vs. JA as ambassadors to France. "He cannot dance, drink, game, flatter, promise, dress, swear with the gentlemen, and small talk and flirt with the ladies; in short, he has none of the essential arts or ornaments which constitute a courtier. There are thousands who, with a tenth of his understanding and without a spark of his honesty, would distance him infinitely in any court in Europe."

And what does that say about those who "shine" as courtiers? Hmmm? ..Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 28, 2001 - 03:46 pm
Please, continue with this sparkling conversation. I don't want to interrupt you at all - I'M LOVING IT! Just want to add that the score for the friendship question is JOHN ADAMS - 1 and THOMAS JEFFERSON - 1

I'll make it uneven as I vote for Thomas Jefferson for a friend. I know a few John Adams; perhaps not as learned (and that's questionable) but John has the qualities of a midwesterner as well as a New Englander - they are similar and I've lived in the midwest all my life - OHIO, the heart of it all, as our license plates say. A couple of men I've known could and would do as well for our country under similar circumstances, I feel; which is to take nothing away from what these men did. However, I have never met a Jeffersonian fellow and he intrigues me and I would like to know him better.

Au revoir - for now……ella

EDIT: I just put the friendship score in the heading. What's your vote?

Louise H
November 28, 2001 - 05:14 pm
ELLA, You want my vote? JOHN ADAMS. I worked in an academic setting,and I have met a lot of academic smooth talkers, have answers to all the worlds problems, consider themselves as the elite who know just the right way to handle every problem. I'm afraid that Jefferson was one of those - so many ways he talked a good game, but didn't live by the rules he declared he believed in. Louise

Ella Gibbons
November 28, 2001 - 06:06 pm
Thanks, LOUISE, of course, I want your vote - I want everyone's vote. And we now have equal votes - it's a neck-to-neck race, who will win? Of course, I think it's a little unfair to do this, as we are reading all about John Adams, and McCullough, rightly so, makes John out to be the hero in this whole affair, but..........

Who do you vote for?

Doesn't it make you wonder just a little why so much has been written about Thomas Jefferson? Take a look at this site:

American Presidents


Tonight I'm going to listen to Garrett Sheldon on What Would Jefferson Say? which is one of those listed on the right. I started it last night and was interrupted. It's a little TV program which you can watch and listen to a speaker from the faculty of the University of VA, the university that Jefferson built and loved immensely. It's an hour program and it started off wonderful, although I thought the Introduction was a bit long.

Want me to take notes? Hahaha - no, I won't.

Ella Gibbons
November 28, 2001 - 07:59 pm
If you have Real Player on your computer, you will enjoy listening to that audio/video mentioned above. The author, a Political Science Professor of a branch of the U.of V., has written this book applying Jefferson's philosophical convictions to contemporary issues such as education, race relations, the environment, crime, women, science and the federal budget deficit.

Excellent speaker also - and, of course, you may go to the top and pick another president - our own JOHN ADAMS - and listen to a taped interview of McCullough and this book.

Harold Arnold
November 28, 2001 - 09:09 pm
Previous to this book I really didn't know much about JA, only that he was the one term President. I’ve certainly come know much more about him. I’ve even come to respect him and I am quite certain he deserves a prominent statute on the DC mall. But as a friend, I don't think we would really hit it off, and Abigail probably wouldn't approve of me anyway. Yes I think I would get along better with TJ.

In the Ambrose "Undaunted Courage" biography of Captain Lewis, we are told that the Captains mother who was a neighbor of TJ excelled in curing hams and each year in the fall she would send a few to her neighbor at Monticello since TJ particularly favored them. Hopefully, my buddy TJ will invite me to dinner when his new Paris trained chef, James Hemings has one of these hams is on the menu. How's that for fantasy?

Ann Alden
November 29, 2001 - 08:16 am
Lurking, lurking!! while reading this wonderful book along with the letters of Abigal and John Adams book that I have. Yes, Harold, I would like to taste some that ham myself. I like both of these men for their differentness. They would both make a nice edition to any group of friends. But JA takes affront at so many things while TJ seems to just enjoy his life in Paris. It speaks of being judgemental to a fault on JA's part.

Ella Gibbons
November 29, 2001 - 11:23 am
"If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead & rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing." -Benjamin Franklin"

It is a certainty that I will be forgotten! But I love reading about those that have done both - Franklin, Adams, Abigail Adams and Jefferson - wouldn't you agree?

HELLO ANN! Good to see you again and how do you vote in the heading?

HAROLD - I noted your vote and now we have Jefferson - 3 and Adams 2. Would you have believed that?


I do hate to skip over so many interesting stories - there is mention of Williamsburg where TJ spent his days as Governor of VA. I've been there twice and I hope you have all visited at least once - what a great piece of history we have encased in that little town! I have been in love with the State of VIRGINIA since we went there on our honeymoon in 1950, it's beautiful, perfect weather, and for some time I have longed to move there and spend the rest of my days, but it is not be - and we are also neglecting the story of Benedict Arnold mentioned several times in this book.

WE CANNOT COVER ALL or we may be here until next year at this time, which wouldn't be a crime by any means, but all of you want to go on to other books, and Harold and I have other obligations as DL's.


Shall we accompany Dear John and Abigail to London, with regret over leaving Paris?

"Nobody said goodbye to Paris without some sadness, Abigail was told" Who wouldn't regret leaving their palatial house at Auteuil which included five acres of garden and a staff of eight (it's pictured after page 144) How magnificent a life for Abigail after the farmhouse and the farmwork! Perhaps the mansion and servants helped to overcome Abby's disgust at French habits and customs? It would me!!!!

I cannot leave this chapter without hearing your remarks about Jefferson's NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, particularly the passages on slavery that are quoted on page 331. This was mentioned by the lecturer, Sheldon, that I listened to last night. He said Jefferson had guilt all his life on the issue of owning slaves; TJ decries slavery as an extreme depravity. "despotism on the one part, degrading submissions on the other"

"The departure of your family has left me in the dumps, said Jefferson…" This quote of TJ seems so unlike his writings but he was merely talking to his friend, and shows a side of TJ that is common, like most of us, and, although I would have bored "the hell out of him" (quoting Tiger Tom here) I would have liked him, listened to him, marveled at him, and would have been proud to be his friend.

~CHAPTER SEVEN~

Elizabeth N
November 29, 2001 - 12:38 pm
Dare I say it? I would take John Adams for my friend and Jefferson for my lover!

BaBi
November 29, 2001 - 12:39 pm
A point is brought out in this new chapter that I had not been aware of before, and that is how precarious a position the new nation was in even after winning it's war. It was generally considered by the politically savvy diplomats of Europe that the new United States of American would not last long, and would have to re-unite with England. We still had no settled government (Constitution not yet written and accepted); we were deeply in debt and desperate for money and trade, no navy with which to conduct much trade in any case. One has to wonder.... How did we survive? ...Babi

Ella Gibbons
November 29, 2001 - 04:13 pm
OHO Elizabeth! Of course, you may dare! Well!!! That takes some thinking about. Hmmmmmm He did love his wife very much - there is gossip that he might have had affairs, but proof?????

Our guys are even again in the heading!

Louise H
November 29, 2001 - 05:23 pm
Oh, Ella and Harold, I hope we don't leave JA until we at least get through the election of 1799 - I think it was that date, that or 1800. It is the beginning of partisan politics in elections, and the beginning of mudslinging, and personal attacks. JA was under fire as a monarchist, a lover of things British, etc. and papers, flyers, or whatever they called them in those day, were written attacking him.

The writer/printer of these attacks was a friend of and supported by Jefferson. Yet TJ wrote commisserating letters to JA lamenting that he was the victim of a smear campaign. There is a wonderful paragraph in Ellis letter about this, comparing Jefferson to Washington, who comes across so well, that I'll try to find. Louise

Harold Arnold
November 29, 2001 - 08:34 pm
I think McC should have put the first part of Chapter 7, the part about John Adams and his presentation at King George’s court into its own Chapter. Then it could have been titled, “The Devil and Mr Adams,” or maybe “Mr Adams Meets the Devil.” Actually the ceremony came off quite well. Both JA and the King seem to have maintained the best of diplomatic dignity. As McC tells us, JA and the King had more in common than one might think. Both thought of them selves as farmers, and both were quite well attached to their respective wives and children. Yes King George was a devoted husband and father. I think their brood numbered something like 15 children. I know of no palace gossip connecting the king to hanky panky.

In contrast his male offspring did not share their fathers high moral standards and while the entire crop of royal dukes for many years were unable to come up with an heir by their princess wives, they had no problem fathering a regiment of offspring through their numerous mistresses. Finally in 1820, the Duke of Kent and his German princess wife, as H.R.H. put it, “won the Lottery,” with the birth of Victoria who became Queen in 1837. The mid-19th century English press came to refer to the eight or nine sons of George III as “Victoria’s evil uncles.”

While JA was in London, there occurred in the U.S. the Constitutional Convention arguably the most important U.S. political event ever. Since JA was in Europe, he played no direct role in the event. However, as I pointed out his dissertation entitled, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States” seems to have greatly influenced the form of the Government described in the Constitution.

Considering the many issues dividing the people of the 13 separate colonies, one might wonder that the Constitution was ever ratified. There was a very vocal group including leading citizens like Patrick Henry who became known as the “Anti-Federalists.” I sometimes wonder if TJ, himself might have become aligned with these opponents had he been in the U.S. at the time. To find out more about the “Anti-Federalists” do a Goggle search by clicking the link below and entering Anti-Federalists in the search box

Google

Harold Arnold
November 29, 2001 - 09:08 pm
Louise H, Ella did not mean we were about to leave before finishing the book. You are not going to get rid of either of us so easily. She just meant we were making good time in covering the subject.. We will both be here through the last chapter..

TigerTom
November 29, 2001 - 09:11 pm
Off the subject a bit: It has always amused me that the British Royal family's, at the beginning of W.W. I., blood was entirely GERMAN. Fact is, I don't believe there was any British Blood lines introduced into the Royal Family until the present Queen MUM marred the man who because King George after his brother Edward abdicated to marry Wallace Simpson. today William, second in line for the Throne after his father Charles, is at least half British through his mother Princess Dianna. I bring this up because I remember the animosity in England towards Kaiser William (who was a Grandson of Victoria and a cousin of the King of England.) and the Germans in general.

Tiger Tom

Jonathan
November 29, 2001 - 11:08 pm
BaBi, that is a good point that you've brought up. The qestion of US survival as a nation in those first two decades could take one into all kinds of speculation and historical research, don't you think? And by then, wasn't America strong enough to solve the problem of the Barbary pirates? I would suggest, as the biggest factors, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and England's other Imperial concerns. And wasn't the matter of getting involved, getting into war, or staying out of it, and choosing sides, a big issue in America, in the nineties?

As for choosing between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson...after six chapters I still feel I don't know them well enough. I want to wait at least until we've examined their correspondence in their retirement years. That may seem like a cop-out. Maybe it's just not wanting to take the heavy responsibility of being a tie-breaker.

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
November 30, 2001 - 12:32 am
"When a man is hurt he loves to talk of his wounds," JA was to write in a letter that was never sent to Congress. An amazing man - how often have we read in this book the harsh words of influential men of his time, of Congressmen and friends even, that would have caused many men, not as stubborn as JA, to turn their backs on public service forever. And, yet, he continues overcoming all the obstacles set before him; he perseveres in the midst of "rancorous dispute in Congress" over his appointment as minister to the Court of St. James in London.

What would we have said to King George on such an occasion? Would we be as diplomatic as to include:



TIGER TOM, do our diplomats of today talk in this manner to the Kings of other countries? Particularly to one who has been our former enemy?

As Abigail intimated in a letter, though she and Nabby spent considerable time rigging themselves out in silk and feathers for an audience with the King, the whole business of royalty and their rituals seemed foolish.

And then to be ignored or patronized by London society, and castigated in the press!

Jefferson wrote to Abigail:

"It would have ill suited me. I do not love difficulties. I am fond of quiet, willing to do my duty, but made irritable by slander and apt to be forced by it to abandon my post."


Indeed! My sentiments exactly. And Abigail later was to write that there is no pleasure in "mixing company", as she put it, "when you care for no one and nobody cares for you."

However, "with its paper money nearly worthless, its economy in shambles, the United States was desperate." And JA, ever honest, vowed that America would make good on all outstanding debt to its creditors and was appalled that some states had passed laws against compliance with this part of the Treaty of Paris.

BABI and JONATHAN both mentioned the survival of America shortly after the war was concluded - we will be getting into those problems shortly.

What was most fascinating to me was the fact that the nations of Europe paid enormous sums to the Barbary pirates of North Africa! I never knew that - did any of you? And JA and TJ agreed that the U.S. must do the same until such time that ships could be built to wage war on the pirates.

Thanks HAROLD and TIGER TOM for those contributions of our history - those sidelights make our discussions more interesting in the long run. McCullough, as has been said, is writing only about JA and the circumstances that surround him; leaving out HUGE chunks of the war and subsequent decisions of the men who created our Constitution.

But both JA and TJ will be back in the country soon enough creating plenty of excitement for the country and for us....

Yep, it's a cop-out, JONATHAN, but we'll wait. Who will break the tie?

And no comments on Jefferson's trembling at the thought of God's justice on those who perpetuated slavery? I'm surprised!!!

Later……eg

Ann Alden
November 30, 2001 - 07:10 am
HI Ella,

I am in agreement with ElizabethN on the voting. But also, I think JA came to appreciate TJ after he loosened up in Paris and started to enjoy the frivolous and social pleasures offered there. Even though McC notes that JA preferred to attend plays and operas, mostly with his family. And, I do like JA for his stick-to-itiveness when it came to his mission for the newly formed US. He was goal oriented(as they say today) wasn't he? Even Abigal changed her attitude towards the French after being there for a brief time and seeing what fun people they were. Her remarks about Lafayette's wife show that! It must be hard to loosen up after spending the past four years in charge of the whole family and farm. While she was trying to do everything right, the French were just having a good time! or so it would seem.

williewoody
November 30, 2001 - 08:25 am
I too must agree with Jonathan, it is too early to decide how one feels about either man as a friend. I do know in the early part of their lives they were quite friendly toward each other. I know that later on they, in point of fact, drifted apart and may have even become quite disagreeable to each other. We will see this in later chapters. At this point in time I would lean toward Adams, strictly because I believe he was more of a man of the people. TJ was more of an aristocrat. I have trouble with his belief that all men were created equal, and he supposedly detested slavery, yet he refused to free his slaves as Washington did. But I withhold my judgement as to who I would prefer as a friend until we have seen a bit more of the relationship between JA and TJ.

As to the instability of the new Nation, every generation from the Revolution to the Civil War lived in the fear that our republican form of government would fail. It was the Civil War and the reconstruction period thereafter that really settled for all time the fact that the Republic was indisolvable and that all citizens regardless of color, origin of birth, and economic status were free and equal under the law.

Harold Arnold
November 30, 2001 - 09:34 am
Ann Alden and all: When reading McC’s account of the many French people that John Adams and Abigail met in Paris we should not forget the unhappy future that awaited many of them. I am of course referring to the French Revolution and the terror it spawned in the mid 1790’s. Both Louis XVI and his queen were beheaded as revolutionary justice. Happily Both Lafayette and his wife survived to make a final farewell visit in the 1820’to the Republic he helped to create. The Compte de Vergennes died in 1787 so he was not around for the event but many others from the pre-revolutionary social elite who the Adam’s knew in Paris must most certainly have perished.

Williewoody: Did Washington free all of his slaves? Was it by his will at the time of his death? Regarding TJ, I sort of suspect that there may have been legal problems with TJ freeing his slaves because of his immense debt. Of course he did free a few, Sally, Sally’s children and James Hemings. Perhaps also family considerations, i.e., the urge to leave something to his children may also have motivated TJ not to free his slaves. As I remember Washington did not have surviving children.

TigerTom
November 30, 2001 - 11:18 am
Ella,

Typical Diplomatic letter exchanged between Embassy's and governments: "The Government of the United States of America extends it compliments to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

Body of letter which can contain some quite blistering language couched in diplomatic terms.

End of letter:

The Government of the United States of America whishes to Assure the Government of the Union of Socialists Soviet Republics of it highest Consideration

Yes, the language can get quite sugary . Doesn't fool anyone but it does make talking a bit easier. Which would you rather hear: You S.O.B. or: When you get back to your kennel I hope your Mother bites you. Same thought, different language.

Adams may have thought that the Royals were a pile of Horse Dung. But he would still use that kind of language on them in order to gain his ends.

Tiger Tom

Louise H
November 30, 2001 - 11:34 am
Yes, Tiger Tom, he would. And not just to reach his goal - he believed that a gentleman was always curteous, and he lived by that, as far as I know, all his life - but I'll be it was pretty hard to to at times. Louise

williewoody
November 30, 2001 - 12:36 pm
HAROLD: I feel certain that you know the answers to the questions you posed in #426. In another source I find that Washington freed his slaves in his will, although it does not indicate whether there were any exceptions, so I would assume upon his death they were all freed. You are no doubt correct that Jefferson could not afford to free his slaves, since he was constantly in heavy debt throughout his life. Since slaves were property undoubtedly, he was forced to sell some of them from time to time when his creditors badgered him for payment of his debts. I seem to recall this is indicated somewhere later in this book. Of course, Washington had no children, but Martha did have at least one daughter by a previous marraige and possibly others that I am not aware of. so George did have at least one step-child.

ALF
November 30, 2001 - 01:36 pm
It tickled my fancy to imagine Thomas Jefferson vaulting a fence and dislocating his wrist in an attempt to impress a young lady. Perhaps he did that as he was "talking out of the other side of his mouth."

My vote will have to be for John as I see Mr. Jefferson as a bigotod hypocrite and an unworthy friend.

Elizabeth N
November 30, 2001 - 01:38 pm
Williewoody, here is what I remember from my reading: Jefferson died in debt without a provision for freeing slaves; according to his plantation records, more than one of his sons by Sally Hemmings "ran off." Virginia had a law that all freed slaves must leave the state, so I don't know when he might have freed Sally. As for Washington, a very frugal man, he freed "his" slaves by will and also stipulated that Martha's personal slaves would be free at the time of her death. He left funds to provide a school to help local blacks better move out into society, and of course he left a large sum to fund a famous university. I hope I have recalled this all correctly. ....elizabeth

ALF
November 30, 2001 - 01:43 pm
I don't understand him. He decried slavery "as an extreme depravity" -- yet he owned slaves.

Ella Gibbons
November 30, 2001 - 03:35 pm
TIGER TOM AND LOUISE - I would never have made it as a diplomat - NEVER! And that's funny because no one would want me anyway. If I dislike someone I am apt to just keep quiet and avoid them.

Could any of you? I might have been able to write a "sugary" letter, as TOM calls it, but to look in someone's face and lie? HUH-UH!

WOW - do you see that score up there - our midwest-new englander, John Adams, is pulling ahead in the popular vote! I wonder how much McCullough has to do with that vote in his admiration for his subject??

HELLO ALF - No way am I going to defend any of these characters, these founding fathers, these early presidents of our country! They were all human and we must understand their faults as well as their noble hopes and virtues. They did a great job of getting us all started on the RIGHT FOOT! Hip, hip, hooray for them all.

HOWEVER, I do admire Jefferson's courage to write what he did about slavery knowing all his friends and neighbors in Virginia would castigate him for saying in print what they might have felt in their hearts but would never acknowledge openly! Suppose I were to say or write that I want to help all the poor children in Afghanistan or America but my assets were such that I only had my house and furnishings. Would I sell them to help the children? To be honest, no! Neither could Jefferson - he could not afford to free his slaves - and we must remember we cannot judge these people by the standards of today! It doesn't work. New Englanders had slaves and all of Jefferson's friends had slaves. It was common in those days and they were property.

Jefferson vaulting over a fence? I must get back to the book now - I forget that part, although I remember he did like the ladies. He was a widower at the time - if he did that I would have liked to have been on the other side - haha

GREAT COMMENTS EVERYONE! I JUST LOVE COMING HERE AND READING IT ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH!

later.....eg

Francisca Middleton
November 30, 2001 - 03:59 pm
I would choose Adams over Jefferson. For one thing, Jefferson's various dichotomies (e.g. slavery) made him seem to me as not quite honest in his dealings, writings, interactions, in fact, perhaps not even honest with himself. But the most important factor to me was the way in which he was quite willing to work behind the scenes completely opposite to what he was saying publicly. The worst of these machinations occurs later in the book (I've finished it, but am beginning to re-read the portions as we discuss them here.

Sorry about being so slow to post....but I do read.

FranMMMM

Ella Gibbons
November 30, 2001 - 04:02 pm
Oh, Elizabeth, I'm showing my ignorance here - what university did Washington fund - I can't think?????

I know Jefferson founded or did the architect work for the University of Virginia and loved it immensely. Later I think, poor fellow, he had to sell his book collection in order to pay his debts, but, of course, it was all his own fault, what a spend-thrift! That trait I don't admire.

Ella Gibbons
November 30, 2001 - 04:06 pm
WOW - Adams is way out in front - winning by all counts. If we were voting for him for his second term as president, he would have been there! Do I dare ask if he would have won the presidency over George Washington, instead of coming in second and becoming the first Vice President?

EDIT - Hello Fran - we were posting together. Good to see you in our discussion, come often, and I've noted your vote above. You must point out to us what you are talking about in regards to Jefferson when we get to that point in the book.

Harold Arnold
November 30, 2001 - 08:06 pm
Understanding Thomas Jefferson by E.M. Halliday is a current Thomas Jefferson biography that goes into the Hemings affair in more detail than our McC book. I read quite a bit of this last winter in an easy chair during several visits to the local B & N store. According to this book both Sally and her brother James were freed. Also Sally's children were freed by TJ. From my memory I think it said they were freed before TJ died. Incidentally according to that source all of Sally's children married white spouses. From our book you will remember that TJ had James Hemings trained as a French chef while in Paris

Abigail at several places in the book exhibited a high regard and concern for black people both free and slave. In an earlier chapter we passed without mentioning Abigail’s intervention with her neighbors and perhaps the local Braintree School Board to obtain admittance of a freed Black resident to the apprentice school. In a later chapter she expressed her displeasure when she saw slave labor at work completing the President’s House in the new capitol. I will say more on this when we get to that chapter

The election seems to be turning into something of a landslide for JA. It don't look like either the House of representatives or the Supreme Court will have to decide this one.

TigerTom
November 30, 2001 - 10:04 pm
Ella,



You might make a good diplomat, never know. there is more to it than flowery language. After a while in the Diplomatic service one tends to learn that what is "True" or "Truth" doesn't always mean the same thing to all people(s) and a lie may not be a lie. It may be just another way of looking at something. For Instance: Muslims are prohibited from drinking Alcohol. Yet, I have been in many Well-to-do Muslims homes that had a very well stocked bar. I have also seen Muslims, including Muslims women, knock back a water glass of Scotch with out blinking, something that would have put me on the floor. The Bar? to accomodate guests in thier home from the west who might like a "Drink"; being able to drink like a fish? Again to accomodate guests and not to make them feel uncomfortable drinking around people who are not allowed to drink. In Western countries I have seen Muslims in the Diplomatic Corps who drank all of the time. Years ago the Muslims gave the best parties in Washington D.C. Plenty of booze flowed and it wasn't only the Westerners who were drinking. Still the Muslims in the corps will tell you that they Don't drink and that their religion doesn't allow them to drink. As a diplomat you smile when that is said and say "is that so?" They will also say that they keep and serve booze to be polite they also have something at a Dip party so as not to "Offend" the host. True, there are some Muslims in the Diplomatic Corps who die before allowing themselves to drink Alcohol. As I say, you might make a great Diplomat, never know unless you try.

Jonathan
November 30, 2001 - 10:27 pm
It isn't over 'til it's over. Polls can be deceiving. Alexander Hamilton hasn't cast a ballot yet, or even started his political scheming. Or has he? And doesn't Jefferson turn on his friend, to his friend's political disadvantage? I'll concede that's doing it to the nice guy; but nice guys finish...'nuff said. I don't want to give away the ending.

Abigail really cuts it with me. She can do no wrong. She's my write-in. I wouldn't expect anything less from her than 'a high regard and concern for black people' as you mentioned, Harold. She does mention somewhere else, too, that we should extend respect to all, regardless of race, religion, or country. Why then, I wonder, does she allow her prejudices to spoil her enjoyment of a production of Othello? She was bothered by that herself. Similarly, I think we should feel more charitable towards Jefferson for his courageous honesty in speaking out against the evil of slavery. No doubt the dichotomy in his life, not practicing what he preached, was a serious problem for him. He is more to be pitied than censured.

The wrist he fractured jumping over the wall...is that the same wrist he fractured falling off his horse a year or two earlier? Does anyone know?

Jonathan

ALF
December 1, 2001 - 06:19 am
One grand attribute that TJ had was his boundless love of books.

"There were weeks when he was buying books every day. In his first month in Paris, he could not buy them fast enough and ran up bills totaling nearly 800 francs."

HUH! and my husband complains about my spending too much on books. I will have to read that paragraph to him.

Ella Gibbons
December 1, 2001 - 07:34 am
TIGER TOM, my daughter knows whereof you speak about Muslims. She went to Saudi Arabi with a medical unit during the Gulf War and was there for a couple of months afterwards. The commander of their unit, a doctor, got to know several "high" officials in Rihad (sp?) and invited a few in the unit to their home - there was drinking and spirited conversation. American women felt very uncomfortable there as you can imagine. The G.I.s, with typical humor, called Muslim women MBO's - moving black objects. Haha

You're right, JONATHAN, polls, even among this silent majority/minority (which are we?) are deceiving. Haha We all feel as you do about Abigail - would you say she is the first admirable lady in American History? Who would come before her - Martha Washington - do we know much about her? Well, there was Pocahontas, who else? Certainly one of you can come up with one before Abigail comes along!

ALF, I think Jefferson possessed more books than Adams and both men not only bought them but read them! Of course, Jefferson couldn't afford them, whereas Adams could (due in part to Abigail's management of their finances- note Jefferson's high regard for her in this matter). Tell your husband to stuff it or he'll get no dinner tonight or tomorrow!

Jefferson wrote to Abigail while she was still in London "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive" - a statement that did not please Abigail and she did not write him for some time.

Her method of quelling Shay's Rebellion, the group of farmers who resisted paying what they considered exorbitant taxes, was to suppress the "mob" with the most vigorous measures. Just as stern as Adams, this attitude of both of them will lead to problems later in many areas as we shall note as we read the next chapters.

Civil Disobedience (as Jefferson wrote )- how many ways has our society benefited from it! The few that I think in our era is Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights marches and those that marched against the Vietnam War. There have been others. However, Jefferson went a bit far when he wrote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.

What are your thoughts on this Jeffersonian issue?

"POPULARITY was never my mistress, nor was I ever, or shall I ever be a popular man", Adams wrote. (Would that he could see the results of our little poll!)

We can all agree on Adams' thoughts on human nature and his three parts to government, the executive, legislative and judicial. Hasn't it worked well since it was instituted, although at times we have doubted?

And we can be amused when JA writes that one regret of leaving Europe was the intimate correspondence with Jefferson which was one of the most agreeable events in his life.

Oh, how little he knew of the future!

Harold Arnold
December 1, 2001 - 10:31 am
Ella, I would echo your assessment that TJ went a bit far when he wrote, ” the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.” I think in fact he even added “every 20 years." In this regard our current United States is definitely not “Jeffersonian.” As I have pointed out in previous posts, from the Shay’s Rebellion to Ruby Ridge it has shown no sympathy for newly defined causes that culminate in violent action. So far as it is concern, 1776 was a one-time occasion, never again to warrant repetition.

Of course, I don’t think for a moment that TJ really meant literally what he said. The writing was made under the intoxicating influence of the news of the French Revolution. This intoxication, like others was followed by sobriety.

And regarding early American women of importance, I am sure that every 1930’s Houston Texas school kid going through the first 3 elementary grades would add the name of Betsey Ross to the list. We would recognize Martha Washington too as the wife of George Washington, but I fear Abigail Adams would not be recognized at all.

Regarding Betsey Ross, early on we heard the story of how she made the first flag. I am unclear as to the extent of her involvement. I know there had been an earlier flag with the 13 alternating red/white stripes but with the union jack (crosses of St George & St Andrew) in the upper left hand corner. The Betsey Ross flag in 1776 substituted the 13 stars for the union jack and was later approved by Congress as the national flag. I remain unclear on the circumstance motivating Betsy Ross to make the first flag. Does anyone have further information on this?

TigerTom
December 1, 2001 - 10:56 am
I thought the quote was: "The Tree of Liberty must be
refressed with the Blood of Martyr's (not Tyrants) every
twenty years." But then, what do I know?



Tiger Tom

TigerTom
December 1, 2001 - 10:58 am
Today is, I believe is Persian's (Mahlia's) Birthday.



Happy Birthday Mahlia!



Hope I am not wrong in this.



Tiger Tom

Louise H
December 1, 2001 - 12:32 pm
Good afternoon. I went to a craft show this morning, just fair, but I did get a lovely pair of amethyst earrings, small drops. I have a small cache of earrings all ready when my earlobs heal. By heaven, if they don't heal right, and just close up, I'll have more holes put in until they are right - I have about 6 prs. of earrings now and one way or another, they are going on the ears!

Re Jefferson: here is another quote from Ellis' Founding Brothers:

Ellis is talking about Jefferson's view of the future for this country and for other countries: "the future he felt in his bones was...a radical break with the past and with all previous versions of political authority. Like Voltaire, J. longs for the day when the last king would be strangled with the entrails of the last priest. The political landscape he saw in his mind's eye ...was a horizon swept clean of all institutions capable of coercing American citizens from pursuing their happiness as they saw fit. ...the essence of his vision (depicted) a radical transformation of society and the emergence of a utopian world IN WHICH THE ESSENTIAL DISCIPLINE OF GOVERNMENT WAS INTERNALIZED WITHIN THE CITIZENRY. The only legitimate form of government, in the end, was self-government.""(Ellis, Chapter 4, The Farewell)

Now, look at that sentence and think about it. Think of our society today -or any society in the west (I am not including third world countries on the whole, as so many are dictatorships of one king or another). Would you say that the discipline of government has been internalized in our citizens, so that the institutions of government, are not necessary, since the RULES FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT are so ingrained in ALL our citizens that they instinctively act, in all things, and at all times, under this internalized discipline.???

Jefferson was a charming man, educated, with impeccable taste in wine, food, literature, music, etc. etc. But frankly, I wouldn't vote for him for any public office - his head was in the clouds, and unfortunately he could not see the problems at his feet. Louise

P.S. I probably would enjoy having a date with him, though. But not marriage. Not with the way he spent money.

Jonathan
December 1, 2001 - 02:46 pm
That settles it, Louise, I,m going out to get a copy of Founding Brothers. There are just too many good quotes from it. I share your feelings about Jefferson (except for the date, of course). I must find out more about him. Whatever brought him around to the view that 'a radical break with the past and with all previous versions of political authority' would be the gateway to any kind of utopia. What a contrast to John Adams, who searched the classics for examples of political authority to learn from and take the best of; and whose sense of civic duty would seem to have been the absolute opposite to Jefferson's pursuit of happiness at all costs. If JA's thoughts on human nature were gloomy, Jefferson's notions of transforming society with the help of a self-discipining citizenry would seem to have been naive.

Can you imagine two more different types than JA and TJ? But still they were attracted to each other, seemingly. Or fate threw them together. At first JA was TJ's mentor, wasn't he? The frugality of Adams, and Jefferson...the first of the big spenders! Isn't it hilarious to see what the latter brought back from France. Was it the IOU's he wanted to leave behind, by making a radical break with the past? What a life style. On credit! Make sure he picks up the tab on that date.

Good gracious, Louise, are you really, by heavens, going to adorn yourself with all 6 prs of earrings? Don't you think that's a bit extravagant? Let us know how Thomas reacts. I meant to ask you about the lemon cheesecake you enjoyed at Thanksgiving. I don't mind boasting about my ability to make a cheesecake, and I'd love to know what goes into a lemony cheesecake.

Jonathan

Louise H
December 1, 2001 - 05:29 pm
JONATHAN, not all six at once!!

The lemon cheesecake came from a bakery in Medford, Ma. So I don't know what went into it, but it was delicious, it had more taste than the usual cheesecake you buy. Actually, it was one large cake which was made up of wedges of about three or four different cakes, lemon, strawberry, coconut, and a couple of others. I don't know howthey got the wedges to stick together, I didn't examine it closely.

Yes, get founding brothers. It doesn't have as much detail about the individual men written about - but it has a good overview of them - each seen from the standpoint of a particular issue each was deeply involved in.Louise

Elizabeth N
December 1, 2001 - 05:36 pm
Louise I am sorry to tell you that some ears never never never accept piercing (mine for instance), and Ella as to the university Washington funded, I can't remember the name but recognized it when I read it.

Louise H
December 1, 2001 - 05:48 pm
ELIZABETH, those suckers are going to have holes, OR ELSE. I'll check into reconstructive surgery for ear lobes, if need be. Louise

Harold Arnold
December 1, 2001 - 08:22 pm
Louise H., in Message #445 quoting TJ wrote:
The political landscape he saw in his mind's eye ...was a horizon swept clean of all institutions capable of coercing American citizens from pursuing their happiness as they saw fit. ...the essence of his vision (depicted) a radical transformation of society and the emergence of a utopian world IN WHICH THE ESSENTIAL DISCIPLINE OF GOVERNMENT WAS INTERNALIZED WITHIN THE CITIZENRY. The only legitimate form of government, in the end, was self-government.""(Ellis, Chapter 4


If I read this sentence correctly it says Utopia will result from the self discipline of the people who will ignore their current self interest to vote for the greater good and future of their country.. I don’t see much evidence of this having happened. Don’t most people vote their pocket book and isn’t the attention span of most politicians limited to the length of the term he/she is seeking? And of course the horizon has not been swept clean of institutions, far from it there are more and they are stronger than ever and quite adapt at to the practice of coercion.

Louise H
December 2, 2001 - 09:29 am
Harold, you've" hit the nail on the head" - its depressing, but its absolutely true. JA was a realist, and as Jonathan, I think, said, he was a reader of the ancient classics of Greek and Roman literature, and he read the works of their philosophers, to see what he could learn about man, and his nature. From this, he arrived at a concept of government - more or less what was agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention, altho he wasn't there at that time - which seemed reasonable to him. He was not a monarchist, but he understood human nature.

In one quote, dont remember where, he discusses whether or not man's nature is in theory at least, perfectable, and he does not believe it is. And history has borne him out. I think he believed in as much goverment as was needed to prevent the rich and powerful from exploiting the poor, and to prevent the poor from forming mobs, with "mob rule" taking over - but no more goverment than that.

I think today for many of our questions - the question of military tribunals for terrorists, for example, (on which I haven't formed any opinion yet, don't know enough) I think JA would study the question at length, he would read the opinions of others, consider the results of both acceptance and non-acceptance of such a method of trial, and would arrive at a structure which to him, while not perfect, would embody the most good of each point of view, and the least harm.

Which I guess is why a "middle of the road" man is hated by both sides in any political situation. Louise

ALF
December 2, 2001 - 09:53 am
Isn't this fitting for our discussion at this point?

"Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in. One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Harold Arnold
December 2, 2001 - 10:05 am
Here are a few comments coming out of Chapter 7:
London in comparison to Paris.


From the descriptions in Chapters 6 & 7, of the Adams life in Paris and London, in which city would you rather live? I definitely have the idea that living in Paris was more enjoyable for the Adams’ than in London. It may have been because the cost of luxurious living was greater in London. Also I seem to remember that Congress in one of its cost cutting spells had cut Adams’ salary (but I could not quickly find this reference in the book). Frankly I don’t see how they ran the large Paris house with its five-acre garden on only eight servants particularly when considering the independent nature of the French work forced. In London they saved money by serving simple dinners.
Nabby & William Smith.


Nabby sent a “Dear John” letter to the boy friend back home, replacing him with William Smith who she married. I note her parents seemed not to try to influence her in any way in choosing her husband.
JA meets with old friend, Jonathon Sewall in London.


It seem quite a nostalgic meeting with this old friend who remained steadfast in his tory position. Sewall had not prospered economically and before long he would return to Canada where he lived his remaining years
JA & TJ tour the English countryside:


Almost in the modern day style the two Americans in England toured the countryside visiting gardens and country homes. TJ in particular was interested since he was formulating in plans for Monticello. Some forty plus years later in 1826 another American John James Audubon described a similar tour, in that case with English friends in his “1826 Journal.

Ella Gibbons
December 2, 2001 - 11:49 am
TIGER TOM - the quote from Jefferson about the "tree of liberty" that Harold and I were referencing is on page 371 of our book and I'm so happy to learn that Harold believes TJ didn't mean it!

What a wonderful discussion all of you are having and we owe a big THANK YOU to LOUISE for giving us so much to think about it, particularly the differences between JA and TJ - the former believing in a strong government, particularly the presidency, and the latter, fearful of a monarcy or dictator, pushing for states' rights. These different viewpoints are discussed in the later chapters which we will be discussing shortly.

SO MUCH FUN TO COME HERE AND READ ALL OF YOUR VIEWS! A mini-constitutional convention right here on the Internet! Could we do any better than they? Hahaha

And somehow, ALF, got us involved with Andrew Jackson!!! Hahaha - but a perfectly apt quotation, thank you ALF!

Somewhere back in the posts someone mentioned Betsy Ross and while looking up the history of the flag I came across this site you may enjoy looking at. It's beautiful - however, it doesn't mention Alaska and I can't remember whether Hawaii or Alaska was admitted first, but I do know that both were admitted in my lifetime! Will Puerto Rica someday be a state or will they become independent? Who else can we think of?

American Flag and its history


Where did the idea of JA wanting to put a prince on the throne in American originate? The first it is mentioned, I believe, is on pg 379,

Adams read with great satisfaction a copy of the new Constitution while still in London and the only item in it that gave him pause was the presidential powers of appointment having to be approved by Congress. Here I need help, Harold, as I believe the only appointments by the president today that needs the approval of Congress is, of course, the Supreme Court and the Cabinet (or am I right about that?) What other? Ambassadors? No, I don't think so - HEY TIGER TOM, we might need you here.

Also, JA was unhappy about the absence of the Bill of Rights; however Jefferson was greatly concerned about the powers of the presidency and wrote:

(re: office of the president) "He (the president) may be reelected from four years to four years for life….Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the four years, they made him ever ineligible a second time."


Someone correct if I am mistaken, but I believe it was not until after FDR's death that the Constitution was amended to state that a president may only serve two terms in office.

This is the area in which JA and TJ differed and in this Jefferson had cause to be perturbed, do you all agree?

McCullough writes to great length at the end of this chapter - Chapter Seven - of Adams' contributions abroad; however, in simpler statements, I would say he did two things - helped obtain ships from France, and got a loan from the Dutch and for all of McCullough's flowery language, these are facts. Whether the Continental Congressmen at the time felt the money they spent on JA, his mansions, his salary, his travels were well spent we shall never know.

However much JA's popularity in this Forum and among us are questions in my mind remain: 1) would he have been more effective in the war effort at home? 2) did we need five commissioners in France at one time? 2) was not Franklin just as effective with the French as Adams? 4) did he serve any purpose whatsoever as the Minister to London? 5) does McCullough exaggerate Adams' bravery in journeying across the ocean considering that Franklin and others had done the same? 6) would you have left your children, as Abigail did, in the care of others while spending years in France and London?

I must stop here and count the years JA was abroad and the years that Abigail spent with him.

And if are ready to journey back to America to see what our country looked like in 1778, let us go to

~CHAPTER EIGHT~

Joan Pearson
December 2, 2001 - 01:52 pm
I see you are between chapters...so hopefully I won't be interupting the thread of this discussion.

Just watched three hours of CSPAN's in-depth interview of David McCullogh...did YOU see it! Simply wonderful! I'm amazed at Brian Lamb's ability as an iterviewer. He keeps the show moving and focused completely on his guest. But clearly has done his homework. The callers were also good...solid questions...some contentious, but threw nothing at McCullough that made him hesitate. Even commented on Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation...favorably. But he did say which generation he himself would rate "greatest"...can you guess?

If you didn't see the show, it airs again tonight...at midnight EST...hahaha. Well, perhaps you could tape it? Or take a nap and set the alarm to catch it? It was that good, honestly. Worth sitting up for.

So many interesting inside stories...he really gets into his character..visiting sites Adams did...reading books Adams read...though not in Greek as Adams did...that is really dedication on the author's part. His wife (McCullough's) is as sharp as Abigail Adams. In fact, the two men seemed very much alike to me too. McCullough twinkles...like Walter Cronkite. No! Like shelby Foote!

Lots more...but will just tell you when it is on...tonight Sunday...ESTmidnight. Maybe it's on earlier in your time zone...you can enjoy it first-hand.

One little thing I found interesting...this man who has read everything...recommends one book that he thinks everyone should take down from the library shelf and reread every five years to keep perspective on the natural order of things...The Wind and the Willows. I think I'll check it out. And definitely look into the John Adams book now. How many chapters in this book? I see you are all set to discuss Chapter VIII this week.

You seem to be having such a great time with this! Onward...chapter 8!

Ella Gibbons
December 2, 2001 - 02:04 pm
Oh, HELLO, JOAN - I was watching McCullough on Book TV also while getting dinner and clearing up. (a three-hour program!) I heard most of it I think and, of course, McCullough is wonderful at this type of thing - an historian, a teacher, he knows his facts. However, POINT-COUNTERPOINT, as we have done in this converation about JA and TJ, I do want to point to one question called in and answered by McCullough. He was asked if he did not "downplay" or "downgrade" (can't think of the right word here) Thomas Jefferson?

McCullough, as we have discussed here before, is an excellent publicist for his own books, he interviews well, he looks and acts like Walter Cronkite - a sJoan pointed out - however, he does make mistakes (as we have already discovered).

In answer to the caller's questions, McCullough (and I thought he was rather defensive here) said everything he put into the book were Jefferson's words! Now, come on! Let's say something about the SINS OF OMISSION!!!!!

And let's also say something about wanting to sell the name of JOHN ADAMS - because he wrote a book about the man and wants to sell it.

HOWEVER, JOAN, I agree he is a marvelous subject for Brian Lamb, Book TV, and the American Experience programs. Just marvelous, but I think Jefferson scholars would believe he has not done the man justice.

ALF
December 2, 2001 - 04:21 pm
In the quick notes that I made listening to McC in November on CSPAN he read something by Petrauch(1346-400 years before Tm. Jefferson OR John Adams.)

They both loved books & he read: " I cannot sate my love for books; the more I get, the more I want. Books thrill you to the marrow; each one creates a desire for another."

Harold Arnold
December 2, 2001 - 09:04 pm
Ella, here are some comments concerning questions raise in your post #454

I don't know this for sure, but perhaps the idea that JA favored a monarchy came from his thoughts favoring a strong executive as described in his paper entitled “A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the Unites States of America.”. Though he never suggests monarchy, the power of his chief exectutive would compare to some extent to the power of the English king. Indeed under the US Constitution the power of the President were great and comparable to that of the English King. Of course under the Constitution the presidency lacked the pomp and ceremony of the King, but JA as Vice President wanted to go a long way to make up for this, by giving him the title of, "His Majesty, the President of the United States. This position surely reinforced the idea that JA was a closet monarchist. In any case JA did not go as far as Alexander Hamilton. If my high school history book was correct, he wanted a monarchy, with George Washington on the throne.

Also concerning the ratification of Presidential appointments, only the Senate (not the whole congress) must in the words of the constitution give its "advice and consent," meaning its approval. Also all major officers of the US are subject to this review including the lesser Federal Judges, General Officers of the Army and Navy and Under Secretaries and heads of administrative agencies. White House Staff appointments are exempt.

Regarding the dates for admission of the last two States, the 49th star was added for Alaska July 4, 1959. The 60th was added for Hawaii a year later in 1960.(The Flag Of the United States

Under the 22nd amendment (1951) there is a two-term limit on the President. If a Vice President succeeds to the Presidency and serves as president for an un-expired term longer than two years he/she is eligible for only one additional term. If he/she serves less that 2 years as President in an un-expired term he/she is eligible for two additional terms. Hence Lindon Johnson who became President in Nov 1963 serving about 14 months of an un-expired term of JFK and who was elected to his first term in 1964 would have been eligible for another term in 1968 had he chose to run. This is the only way an individual can hold the office for more than 8 years with one day short of 10 years being the maximum time possible. Today Bill Clinton is forever ineligible, but Jimmy Carter and George Bush, senior, would be eligible for another term.

It would appear that TJ today should be quite satisfied with the limit except of course it is longer than the one term limit he favored.

Jonathan
December 2, 2001 - 09:37 pm
Ella, I'm eager to get on to the next chapter, but not before I reply to Harold's suggestive 'comments'. Sometimes it seems to be McC's intention, part of his style, is to tease the reader into thoughtful comments, with his quotes and his conclusions and what he leaves unsaid. But first I concur with Louise (I'm sorry for teasing you about the ear-rings) that McC wishes the reader to compare John Adams and Thomas Jefferson...both presidents-to-be. So different in outlook, so different in method and personality. Both started as revolutionaries in the struggle for independence, seeing eye to eye. Move forward ten years, and what a contrast, for example, in the reaction of each to Shay's Rebellion. Adams, now more conservative, sees in it a reason to advocate stronger governmental authority. Jefferson, still a revolutionary, perhaps caught up with French radical thought, sounds almost flippant when he says, 'I like a little rebellion now and then...(and)the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure...for the tree of liberty.'

Both men, of course, shared an optimism about the future of America and creating a better, progressive political entity. If Jefferson talked about a utopian society, Adams talked about something equally paradisiac, about a second chance at a Garden of Eden, 'the best opportunity' since Adam and Eve. So you see, it's not Republican vs Federalist, at all. It's a state of innocence (Adams) vs an infusion of self-discipline (Jefferson).

A better authorial reason for giving Jefferson plenty of book-time is the fact that he tends to liven up the story. The Adamses needed him. His closeness in Paris made London and the British 'icy civility' bearable. Abigail 'had begun to find life increasingly empty and pointless'. John working on the 'Defence' (even working right thru Christmas, while the rest of the family went off to Bath) and thinking that 'he had achieved nothing in his diplomatic role', wanted to get back to America and be part of the Constitution-writing process.

JA and TJ's English garden tour was a fine interlude for Adams (Jefferson seemed to be doing it all the time) and makes interesting reading. My comment on it would be my astonishment at how McCullough characterizes the 'natural' English garden in comparing it to the 'formal' French garden. In those glory years of Capability Brown and Andre La Notre. The English garden was meant 'to appear to be the work of the hand of God, but was in fact the doing of the 'master-hand' of the landscape gardener or architect'. Talk about horticultural hubris!

It's tempting to go, with Jefferson, back to Paris and France, where 'They have as much happiness in one year as an Englishman in ten', according to Jefferson. How is it possible to withhold comment on the happiness which Jefferson finds, despite 'an unfortunate dislocation of my right wrist.' How did that happen? It is a fact that he has fallen madly, head over heels in love with a very pretty woman; that he cancels all his engagements (with plenty of diplomatic lies) just to be with her. But are we expected to believe that it happened while 'attempting to impress her by vaulting over a fence'?! At forty-three, tall and handsome, and debonair, trying to impress, with a jump! Not likely. Not Gallic at all. More likely that the beautiful Maria Cosway was fending off a violent, amorous advance.

Meanwhile, back in Grosvenor Square, the Adamses are trying to scrape by on that very meager allowance. You're right, I believe, Harold, that Congress reduced it...from 2500 to 2000 pounds a year. That seems to me (perhaps to Jefferson, too) like someone back home was trying, deliberately, to make Adams' mission impossible. By way of a comment on your suggestion that the Adamses saved money by serving simple dinners, I would like to quote from another bio (P Smith) a very curious story with strange implications as to diplomatic niceties and savvy and the need to save. I feel very sorry for Abigail in all this.

'Finally the day arrived when, money or no money, John and Abigail resolved they must invite the foreign ministers to dinner. In the midst of a great bustle presided over by the imperturbable Spiller (the butler), Captain Hay arrived from Boston by way of the West Indies, bringing a giant cod from New England waters and a hundred-pound turtle from the Indies. John was delighted. It was providential that such a classic New England dish as cod should arrive at that particular moment. It would be most appropriate for the foreign ministers. Grinning like a schoolboy, he told Nabby he would vow that Mr Jefferson had received no such bounty in Paris. She must not let Congress know of it however, he added, for those penny pinchers would at once reduce his salary.

'There was the question of what to do with Abigail and Nabby during the dinner. The practice on such occasions seemed to be to banish the ladies, so after a solemn council mother and daughter were packed off to the Copleys' where they had to sit and fret and wonder if everything was going as it should.

Their anxieties proved groundless; the dinner was a great success and Lord Carmarthen was gracious enough to say that he would have enjoyed dining with the ladies. This remark, when John, pleased as could be over the whole affair, reported it to them, gave Abigail and Nabby a pang of regret at having missed the spectacle - John presiding over a table lined with the ambassadors of the great powers of Europe.'

Jonathn

Louise H
December 3, 2001 - 07:13 am
JONATHAN, re your comments, as I remember it McCullough pointed out that there really wasn't any vocabulary available to describe the role/office of the president. This was a "new concept" of the head of state. I believe JA went back to Roman history, before the emperors, but didn't come up with a clear alternative to the title of king. So he kind of tried to fit some of the vocabulary which was applied to a king, to the office of president. Thus His Majesty,etc. I don't think JA had any idea of an hereditary monarchy, far from it.

But he felt the office of president was a noble, distinguished one, and cast about trying to find ways to show that recognition.The question arose as to curtesying before the president, bowing deeply, etc. His Majesty the President, etc. JA and others (Washington rode in a coach with six horses) more or less tried them on for size, and then abandoned them.

Sometimes I think there is more pomp and ceremony surrounding the presidency now than there was in JA's time - "Hail to the Chief",a red carpet, standing in his presence, etc. Not my taste. an air of respectful equality seems more like the proper attitude to display to the chief of state.

Re the earrings - no problem. I considered the idea of trying to hang six earrings on each ear, but it did seem a bit ostentatious. Louise

BaBi
December 3, 2001 - 09:53 am
Good Grief! I have not been able to get in to Seniornet for the last three days, and come in to find over 40 new messages posted. I am quite sure I could never read them all before AOL disconnected me again, so I must pass on that interim of discussion.

I did read the last couple of messages, and find I must have accidentally missed a page in my reading. Jonathan, please, where is the story of the dinner party with the cod and the turtle? I missed that entirely.

One great contrast that caught my attention in this chapter, though, and that I would like to hear comments on from some of our astute posters: the radical difference between the cleanliness and lack of poverty in the Netherlands, and the filth and abject poverty seen in England and France. I have been able to identify only a few clues. For one, they did not have a powerful monarch, but a "stadtholder", with the real power invested in the councils of the provinces. Their was no grossly privileged aristocracy. Then, too, I find that as early as the 17th century, they had high level of literacy among their population. Finally, they were a tolerant people--so much so that dissidents from France and England chose to live there.

So, what do you think? Is that sufficient to explain the difference. I would think not, as these things largely apply to us today, yet we have far too many people living in poverty and our cities are far from being as clean as they should be. Actually, I think that the demands of keeping the country functioning and clear of the sea...in assuring plenty of work for everyone, may have a great deal to do with it. Whatever these Dutch had, I would like to see it here. ..Babi

Elizabeth N
December 3, 2001 - 11:37 am
BaBi: You might look at web site ev1.net which is Everyone's Internet. $10 a month unlimited access. I've had it for months and seldom am denied access--occasionally on weekday mornings--that seems to be the time of heaviest traffic.

TigerTom
December 3, 2001 - 12:05 pm
Babi



When I was first in Holland it was not all that unusual to see the Dutch Houswife scrub her doorstep; the stairs leading up to her door; her part of the Sidewalk and on out into the street in front of her door. If any one of the HOusewife's on the block failed to keep her section clean she heard about it.
The dutch are a very Conservative, Religious people who are also very tolerant. So much so, that they allowed the hippies to come into their cities in the 60's and lay wsste to them. Last time I was in Holland the cities still had not completely recovered and I didn't see any women scrubbing as they did when I was first in that Country. The Dutch have always been a clean and neat people. Also very, very good Business types. I was once told by a Dutch man "We Dutch do not joke about money." I loved the three years I spent in Holland and like the Dutch very much.

Ella Gibbons
December 3, 2001 - 03:30 pm
JOURNEYS


McCullough in his interview on C-Span, made the remark that his book was a journey through JA's life, beginning with his first journey to Philadephia on horseback, and ending with a journey through his mind in the twilight of his years. But before we begin...

I want to thank ALF for the wonderful quote - how true that each book creates a desire for another and I remember reading that Adams moaned about missing the accessibility to books when he left England. Do you think that both he and Adams loaned out their books to friends and neighbors, they were so precious and expensive items in America at the time.

HAROLD - I can't thank you enough for answering all my questions, you are such a font of knowledge, I don't want to even think about doing a discussion of this length without you. And such details as you provided are immeasurable.

It was a new perspective you gave us, JONATHAN, on authorship - "an authorial reason" (loved that) for McCullough writing Jefferson into the story of Adams. HE NEEDED JEFFERSON as you said as a foil for Adams - and the contrast of ideas, YES, OF COURSE. We would not have had such a lively debate if we just had had Adams would we?

I've been laughing every time I see your name, LOUISE, as we are so much alike - "I'm retired, for Pete's sake, so why can't I exercise on the treadmill every day for an hour?" (your quote sometime back) I try - listen to audio tapes while I'm on there, but do manage at least 3 times a week. Thanks so much for your comments from the Ellis book, they have added a lot to our conversation, so keep them coming.

BABI AND TIGER TOM! What a good exchange of views! And the hippies ruined the cities of Holland? American hippies? Whew-ee! Are they completely gone from our culture or are they called by another name today? I'm not "hip" as to the latest news from the new generation.

We begin Chapter Eight with JA's journey back home from his years abroad, never to return! He had been in Paris and London for nine years; how wonderful it must have been to return home after such a long absence. He had left after the war started and came home when it was over. So much had happened during his long journey overseas!

McCullough, in his interview, mentioned how intelligent and educated John Quincy, the son, was, due in part to his experiences in Europe with his parents. We haven't mentioned him at all; however, McCullough further stated that he didn't make a very good president, but went on to become a great senator - THE ONLY PRESIDENT EVER to do that!

Later…..eg

Elizabeth N
December 3, 2001 - 04:55 pm
I think ex presidents should be senators at large--no state, no party, no term limits. I thank you all for this delightful discussion.

Ella Gibbons
December 3, 2001 - 06:48 pm
ELIZABETH - you're part of us, part of our group here that are coming to know each other so well through our discussion - I feel like I could stay here for a long time - I know all of you now! Isn't it a great feeling to have friends on Seniornet and to listen to each other's ideas.

We each bring something of ourselves to the discussion - delightful company, all of you, but now I have

A question for someone - why did Abigail and John give their eldest child the middle name of Quincy? The Quincy family was the wealthiest at the time in the Village of Braintree and John almost proposed to a daughter, but that is hardly reason enough is it? And, of course, later the city was renamed Quincy, MA and I'm not sure about the reason for that either.

Two surprises were in store for our hero and heroine - Abigail, used to the large mansions of Paris and London, finds to her chagrin that her new home in the new nation "feels like a wren's house" and John, finds to his consternation, that he is one of the older men in the present government, many others, namely, Madison, Hamilton and Ames are quite a bit younger.

Many of us on Seniornet understand that very well - all our doctors, dentists, policemen, mayors are all too young for the job! Hahaha

Certainly, it must have come to no one's surprise that George Washington was the only man to be our first president, and regardless of Hamilton's little scheme, John Adams was rewarded the vice-presidency at the age of 52, Jefferson being 46 at the time, and JA not only was rewarded with the office, but had a grand sendoff with cannons, crowds and a cavalcade.

Another question! From whom did George Washington buy 20,000 acres of land in the Ohio River country? Who were the prior owners - it was all virgin land occupied by native Americans. I must find out more about dear George.

And what a task he had - how to pull all these people together as a nation when all were accustomed to putting their state, their laws , their property ahead of any other form of government. They had, after all, just defeated one dictatorial power, wouldn't you be a bit leary of another in power, one that was unfamiliar to you?

McCullough gives us ample proof that it is Adams who takes the responsibility of it all (and at times, it seems Adams alone); he stated "the fate of this government depends absolutely upon raising it above the state governments." Who wrote the first line of the Constituion which declares WE THE PEOPLE, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION? Certainly there must have been others involved here? Hahaha

Harold Arnold
December 3, 2001 - 09:01 pm
Ella, land speculations were the investment of the day. Did not they pay revolutionary war solders with rights to buy land? Many I am sure sold their rights and big operators bought them and acquired large tracts of Western land. Washington I expect had such rights on his own and he was in a position to buy others.

I’ve already mentioned my ancestor, Alexander Wells, who earlier had bought land rights of veterans of the French Indian war to buy thousands of acres a few miles from the Ohio River in what became Washington County PA. Lord Dunmore, the last Royal Governor issued the earlier patents. Later patents were issued by Thomas Jefferson when the was Governor during the revolution. The land first thought to be in Virginia, ended up as a part of PA. Alexander built a fort, a mill, and a distillery on his land that he operated successful until the time of the whiskey rebellion.

We are now beginning to hear more about Hamilton. He was a crafty politician and as Ella mentioned he was already practicing his art during the first election. JA won the vice presidency in 1798 despite a Hamilton ploy that did not favor JA. Though he may have been a shady politician, I thing Hamilton was and still is considered a good Secretary of the Treasury.

Elizabeth, is it you who is reading the “Founding Brothers” title? If so tell the group about the dinner TJ gave in New York that made possible the compromise that moved the national Capitol to the Potomac (Washington) and achieved passage of Hamilton’s financial plans that included Federal assumption of the States revolutionary war debt.

TigerTom
December 3, 2001 - 09:20 pm
Ella, Hippies ruined cities in Holland. Yes and elsewhere. Kathmandu to name one (and Nepal) was ruined by Hippies looking for "Nirvana" In this case Nirvana was a Drug heaven. Drugs were cheap and easily had in Kathmandu and Nepal. Once the Hippies found out about this they came in by the droves like Vultures. Drove up local prices for everything and as a result impoverished the Nepalese. Of course,American business followed and Hotels popped up and Tourists came in, again driving up prices. When I was last in that part of the world Nepal was in a crisis. It was so bad that Nepalese soldiers were selling their Knives to Tourists: Now a young Nepalese male is given his knife when he is young (or was) by his father. He is told to honor it, never to take it out unless blood is drawn and not to part with it. A Nepalese male had to be pretty desparate to sell something that is so much a part of him. But that it what Nepal became and very much of it is the fault of the Hippies. Not all of the Hippies were American, many of them were from various European Countries. I just notice the Americans more because I am one and they stand out to me. Frankly, the Hippies, the Hare Krisna's and the American "Sikh's" were disliked a great deal on the Sub-continent Particularly the Hare Krisna's and the American "Sikh's." the Indians were insulted by them and the Sikh's despised the American "Sikh's" especially the women who claimed to be "Sikh's" and wore some kind of Turban head dress.

Tiger Tom

Louise H
December 4, 2001 - 07:55 am
Tiger Tom, people in Nepal, etc. couldn't dislike "hippies" more than I did. I lived on Beacon Hill in Boston when they were just becoming a force to deal with. They camped out on the Boston Common, smoking drugs, talking, playing music, begging for food money (and drug money too, I guess). There were no bathroom facilities - the Common is a large sort of park like area, no flowers, but some bushes, roughly divided into different areas. So the hippies, having no bathrooms, and not welcome in the restaurants in the area, used the front stairs of the lovely homes bordering the Common. It got its name, for those who might not have read it, from the fact that it was the "common" pasture area for cattle in colonial days - the people who lived on Beacon Hill drove their cattle to the common area to graze.

The hippies did a lot to ruin living conditions on the hill. Whenver I read about a prominent person and the writer comments approvingly that he or she was a "hippie" in the 60s, I automatically dislike the person, no matter who he is.

ELLA, As for loaning out books, no, I don't loan any book that I would be sorry to lose. Paper back or hard cover. But I will loan out a book that I bought more or less on a whim, that I don't really care about once I read it. I doubt if JA loaned out any of his books-but then, so many people would not be able to read them. I suppose he might have loaned a book to somebody like TJ, though. Honor would require a true book lover - and TJ was - to return a book to its owner. Louise

ALF
December 4, 2001 - 08:04 am
Just as an aside, look what I found today.

Jefferson was able to enjoy ice cream throughout the year because ice was "harvested" from the Rivanna River in winter and taken to the Monticello ice house, which held sixty-two wagon-loads. The ice house located in Monticello's north dependency wing was used throughout the year primarily to preserve meat and butter, but also to chill wine and to make ice cream. In 1815, Jefferson noted, the ice supply lasted until October 15.

While George Washington's papers contain a prior reference to an ice cream maker, the first American recipe for the dish is in Jefferson's hand:

Harold Arnold
December 4, 2001 - 09:20 am
Alf, your post 470 is for me a most interesting one in as much as it puts ice cream (I do love it) as being available in the 18th century. Somewhere I had read that the confection was introduced to America at the St Louis Worlds Fair that was held in 1900.

North from the northern Virginia, Potomac River region the practices of keeping Ice cut from frozen rivers was very common. Certainly in places like Maine and the other northern tier states there was plenty of ice. It was generally kept in well-insulated underground vaults packed in sawdust. George Catlin describes such a facility with Ice for cooling drinks etc in the summer of 1833 at the American Fur Co trading post on the Missouri River at the mouth of the Yellow Stone.

If you have a web source for the 18th century Jefferson ice cream recipe, I would like to try making it sometime.

Mary W
December 4, 2001 - 10:55 am
Hello everyone,and a special hello to Ella. I've had my copy of "John Adams" for months and intended to be a member of this group from it's inception. Didn't work out because I was ill for a long time and couldn't read or contribute. I have tried to keep up with the posts and have enjoyed them immensely. You are a great group.I'll try to catch up and sign in from time to time.

All that to explain my butting in so uncermoniously. The St. Louis World's Fair was held in 1904. My father attended it and told us many wondrous stories of his experiences as a young boy (fourteen, I think) at a huge fair in a big city. One of the enduring tales of "firsts" of the fair was the creation of the first ice cream cone, not ice cream which had been around forever. It was made in some kind of a hand cranked churn. Another more famous first was the "hot dog" which has also had a long life.

Sorry to correct you Harold. You are just not old enough to remembe all these earth-shaking events.

See y'all later. Hank

Ann Alden
December 4, 2001 - 12:29 pm
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream! Harold, I will look up that ice cream recipe. Seems like it would be on the Monticello site, if there is one. I can't remember if there are any recipes exhibited there or not. Should be an interesting search.

BaBi
December 4, 2001 - 02:38 pm
Harold and Mary, may I contribute another bit to the ice cream cone story. The ice cream vendor originally started out selling the ice cream in paper bowls. He ran out of the bowls, with long lines of people standing in the heat wanting to buy ice cream. I understand he tried washing and re-using some of the paper bowls, in desperation.

Next to him was a vendor selling waffle-type pastries, which were not doing as well as the ice cream on that hot day. When the pastry seller saw what was happening in the next booth, he got a bright idea. He baked up one of his round waffles, quickly rolled it into a cone, and passed it to the ice cream seller, indicating that he should put a scoop of ice cream in the waffle. It was a great success and the pair teamed up.

Viva la ice cream cone! ..Babi

Ella Gibbons
December 4, 2001 - 06:45 pm
WHAT A GROUP WE HAVE HERE - YOU'RE ALL SO MUCH FUN TO LISTEN TO - I JUST WISH IT COULD BE IN PERSON, WOULDN'T WE HAVE A GOOD TIME!

You've gone all the way from the destruction wrought by the hippies in the 60's in Nepal and the Boston Commons to ice cream at Monticello and ice cream cones at the St. Louis World Fair in 1904!

WHERE ELSE COULD ONE GET A CONVERSATION SUCH AS THIS! And I didn't mention that we are discussing the life of JOHN ADAMS - hahahaha!! So much fun to hear your stories! Thank you all for making it such a great experience to come in here and read your comments. I look forward to it every day.

Please pardon me just a couple of minutes to say HELLO HANK! YOU OWE ME A LONG LETTER AND AM SO SORRY YOU'VE BEEN ILL Hank and I have been emailing each other since we first met in the Ben Bradlee (of Washington Post Fame) discussion two or three years ago. It's so good to hear from you and when you are feeling better do email. I knew you would like this book, this discussion, these wonderful people!

We all love history or we wouldn't be here, we admire and revere these brave people who waged war against a mighty enemy that we might live in this country with freedom for all. Sometimes I wonder how I could have been so fortunate to have been born here, cross borders of states with ease, send my children to school where they get a good education and go to the church I choose whenever I choose, criticize my president and our leaders if I want and write letters to the press. All the freedoms we take for granted that so many others do not have.

Didn't you find it interesting to read about the "state of the economy" of the 13 colonies when JA returned from abroad - the population had doubled in 13 years (wow!), but I can't imagine the confusion of the currency situation, can you? And when McCullough states that "the great majority of Americans lived and worked on farms" I stopped to think about my childhood and it seemed to me it was true even then in the 30's and 40's, could that have been true? We still had small farmers, the Farmer's Exchange in my little town was busy, the biggest store dealt with farm goods, and stores stayed open until 9 pm on Saturday nights to accommodate the farmers who spent the day in town (and, of course, everything was closed on Sunday). I feel old when I relate that!

Leafing through this chapter I've highlighted paragraphs on every page from my first reading of the book so obviously I found this chapter to be one of the more interesting ones and early in these pages we read that JA found the office of vice-presidency to be "not quite adapted to my character" - that it was too inactive and too mechanical.

And hasn't every vice-president since thought the same? What runs through the minds of vice-presidents - is it the thought there is a chance to become president later as George Bush, Sr. did? But certainly they know that there is just as much chance to be forgotten by historians also! Right? I can't even remember who some of the vice-presidents in my lifetime have been. One remembers a Truman, of course, (would FDR have made the atomic-bomb decision we'll never know!); and a Lyndon B. Johnson (who escalated the Vietnam War drastically and was, in part, the cause of the dissidents of the 60's) for dramatic reasons, but the others?

Which vice president stands out in your memory?

Later…….ella

Harold Arnold
December 4, 2001 - 09:18 pm
Mary W, we appreciate your post and hope you will be back often with future posts. And thanks for your comments on the origin of ice cream. I thank you and the others who called my attention that it was the putting of the ice Cream in a waffle cone that was the contribution of the St Louis Worlds Fair, not the ice cream which seems to have been around a good while longer. Maybe I got too much of my information on that fair from the Movies,

On the subject of Ice cream I had a scoop for supper desert, just a moment ago. It was Healthy Choice vanilla with a ladle of crush pineapple with extra juice and a bit of Hershey’s no fat, no sugar chocolate syrup. The latter represents a great triumph of modern food additive chemistry and the combination is a magnificent blend of flavors and only 30 calories per tablespoon (or so I like to believe).

Ella, In the 1930’s US farm population was about 25 % of the total. Today it is about 2%. SeeFarm Population Statistics

And in Chapter 8 we run into a real John Adams first. Yes indeed he was the first Vice President, a fact that made him the one to discover that the VP under the US Constitution held very little power. Of Course since JA didn’t know that he actually tried to lead the senate and participate in its debates. It didn’t go over very big. Perhaps JA’s position on the title of the President helped as his insistence on ”his Majesty, the President of the United States,” a title the House of Representatives would never accept made him seem ridiculous. I got a kick out of the suggested title for the Vice President, “His Rotundity.”

Despite the lack of power as Vice President, the first two US Vice Presidents, JA and TJ both were promoted to the Presidency. The third VP was Aaron Burr who was disgraced after he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel and had to leave politics. During the first 68 years of the 20th century no VP reached the Presidency on his own unless he first succeeded on the death of the President until Richard Nixon finally broke the jinx in 1968. Since then George Bush (Senior) repeated in 1988 but though Al Gore came close in 2000 he didn’t quite make it.

Jonathan
December 4, 2001 - 09:35 pm
Quayle was a rare bird; but I took a liking to Spiro Agnew...and his put down of intellectuals as nattering nabobs, along with other memorable things. And now I can't remember who the president was during Agnews term of office. Wouldn't his vice-presidency be a tough act to follow?

ALF
December 5, 2001 - 05:48 am
Hewre is the link to a pasta machine incorporated by Jefferson. Follow that and you will have the ice creme recipe. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/tri019.html

ALF
December 5, 2001 - 05:52 am
I found it interesting that Abigail, better versed on financial matters than John, wanted to invest in government securities but John "held to his faith in land as true wealth." That wasn't very wise of John not to follow Abby's wishes. They'd be rolling in the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

ALF
December 5, 2001 - 06:46 am
OOps, i just realized I didn't give you the delicious ice cream recipe. http://www.monticello.org/jefferson/dining/at.html

Ella Gibbons
December 5, 2001 - 08:20 am
ALF - I just read that recipe and I would want a slave or servant if I was going to make that ice cream! Complicated - doing all those steps. When I was small I remember the home-made ice cream turning with a crank, in fact, I think we had one also after we got married.

And then we got an electric one - still have it, along with far too much other junk in our basement - and I can't remember how it works but you don't to turn it like the old kind.

Now, of course, we just buy it, although my husband has diabetes and shouldn't eat it at all.

Harold, I didn't know they had Hershey's low sugar chocolate syrup - I'll take a look at that.

later...eg

Louise H
December 5, 2001 - 08:50 am
Good morning all. I've been off for a day or so, as I've had trouble logging on to Sr. Net. It wouldn't take my password, and I couldn't reach the webmaster (finally got him) to straighten it out.

Finally he was able to straighten it out - I think. I'm going back to read chapter 8 this afternoon, I hope. We have a woman - only 51 which is like a girl here, as the average age here is about 82 or 83. She had a terrible stroke, is paralyzed on her right side, cannot talk, and can't read very well as part of her sight was lost. She can't walk, uses a wheel chair. Jean and I more or less became attached to her - she has a wonderful personality, which I don't kow how she manages, as I'd say hers is the most miserable life here - cut off from everybody. But we manage to communicate, and we try to help her where we can.

So this afternoon I have to do cards for her - she does everything with her left hand, which is very strong. She opens medicine bottles with her teeth, and her left hand. Writes with her left hand but not well. Back later with words on JA. I am reading Founding Brothers along with this, and I was asked about the dinner at which a compromise was reached as towhere the capitol would be. As I remember, nothing was ever written down about this by the principals, so Ellis has to more or less draw up a logical scenario. But I'll check and see if I can give any light on this. Louise

Ann Alden
December 5, 2001 - 09:03 am
Alf, I would like to try that recipe for ice cream. Looks so good but I think I will stick to Graeters Ice Cream Parlour which is just a few blocks away from me and the choices are overwhelming. Here is the URL for Monticello. <Monticello website

Does anyone here watch "Founding Fathers" on the History channel? I found it last night and really enjoyed it.

Louise H
December 5, 2001 - 09:11 am
ANN, no I didn't even know it was on. Is it going to run again? A continuing series? I'll watch for it. Thanks for mentioning it. Louise

Ann Alden
December 5, 2001 - 09:20 am
Yes, Louise, it is a continuing series with the next installment shown next Tuesday at 7 or 8pm on the History Channel. Of course to cover all the founding fathers, its rather on the short side for each one, but still interesting.

Harold Arnold
December 5, 2001 - 09:35 am
Ella, the choclate I refered to, to my surprise is not Hershey though it was on the HEB shelf with the other Hershey syrups. Also it is packaged in a plastic container with the color and style or the Hershey products. It is "no sugar" since it uses the "Sweet & Low" substitute instead and as I said it is quite good to my taste.

On the back in small print it says, Distributed by Old Fashion Syrup Co., Inc, Boca Raton, FL, a wholy owned subsidiary of Meridian USA Holdings, Inc (MUSD). On the front is a seal that reads, "Prowd Partner withe the Diabetis Research Institute." It says 20 calories per 2-tbsp serving.

Thanks you guys for the link to the TJ icecream recipie. When I was a kid I remember making ice cream at my grandmothers house with a hand crank machine, with the ice and salt coolent. It was always the best icecream that was licked off the mixing blades when it was removed from the container. The lid was then put on and sealed with a cloth strip soaked in melted butter. This kept salt out of the ice cream from the additional ice and salt miture heaped over the container as it sat for several hours for further freezing before it was ready for eating.

Jonathan, Spiro Agnew was Richard Nixons Vice President. Previously he had been Govenor of Maryland. He resigned because of income tax violations before Nixons. At that point Gerald Ford was chozen VP to replace him. Ford of course became President when Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. Spiro, because of the unsavory circumstances under which he left office is not generally considered one of the better Americian VP's

TigerTom
December 5, 2001 - 11:43 am
I have the books "John Adams," "Founding Brothers" and "The First American" (Ben Franklin.) In the beginning of The First American, the author relates the tale of Franklin's Humiiation at the Hands on the British in what was Known as the "Pit" in the House of Commons. Franklin, at his age, stood for two hours while he was subjected to the most humiliating charges, invective, and insults. When he entered the Commons he was probably Britains best friend in America and a Proud "British American" when he left, after those two hours, he was Britains bitterest enemy. I wonder how John Adams would have stood up to that and how he would have handled it.
Franklin probably handled it right: He took what he had to; defended himself and his country when he could and maintained a poker face throughout. Franklin's contribution to the Revolution and to events thereafter were considerable and due in no small measure to what he suffered that day.

Louise H
December 5, 2001 - 11:46 am
Tiger Tom, thanks for posting that. I didn't know it. Didn't Franklin have a son who lived in London? I wonder how he felt about that, after the reception in the house of commons. I am not sure, but I thought his son continued to live in London, even after the Revolution. Louise

TigerTom
December 5, 2001 - 11:53 am
Louise,



Yes, Franklin did have a son who was a Tory during the Revolution and lived in London after the War. Franklin had used his influence (while he still had some) to get his son named governor General of, I believe, New Jersey, (although I may be wrong about the state.) this did cause Franklin some problems then and later as he was accused of being Pro-British and in their debt for that appointment.
In the end, although I am vague about this, Franklin and his son were estranged after the Revolutionary War. Been a while since I read about Franklin.

Tiger Tom

BaBi
December 5, 2001 - 02:01 pm
Drat! I just deleted my entire message, and have to start over. I wish I knew which button I was accidentally hitting that does that!

Anyway, TTom, I hadn't known that interesting bit of history on Franklin either, and appreciate your contributing it.

I found a couple of things in this chapter that I found enlightening in re. the poor treatment of JA by Congress while he was overseas. I had assumed that many of his old colleagues were still active, and was puzzled by their supposed behavior toward a man I thought they respected. Then I find on Pg. 392 that many of those men had "passed from the scene", and that politics were now in the hands of the "smart young men".

This info. is further illuminated by observations noted on pg. 398: "But more disturbing to him [JA] than almost anything was the view heard in many circles that the old ideal of devotion to the public good had been supplanted by rampant avarice; the love of country by a love of luxury." James Warren wrote that money was all that mattered anymore. "Patriotism is ridiculed. ... Integrity and ability are of little consequence."

It seems to be true, doesn't it, that men always rise up to meet the need in times of crisis. But as they seem to be a more selfless and disinterested type of person, they retire from the scene when the job is done, and the grasping and self-seeking scramble for position.

(I do have trouble balancing my natural optimism with the cynicism induced by a study of history, ie., humanity.) (wryly) ...Babi

Jonathan
December 5, 2001 - 02:19 pm
Harold

Thanks for posting the information that the much-maligned Richard Nixon was President, threatened with impeachment, when it was realized that the Vice-President was an impossible alternative, and grounds were soon found which would expedite his removal from office. I remember the unsavory circumstances. I did want to bring Nixon into the discussion because of the crucial role played by a newspaper in his downfall, and wondered about the similar scenario in which John Adams found himself, which drove him up the wall. Isn't it amusing to think how often Adams, with his temper, could have enjoyed the cooling effect of an ice cream cone? If only Nixon had been a man of integrity and honesty like Adams. He wasn't a 'weak' President, was he?

Jonathan
December 5, 2001 - 02:42 pm
BaBi

I don't want to pile cynicism upon cynicism, but this crazy notion that it's only John Adams who occupies the moral and patriotic high ground becomes tiresome, as it must have to many others. He was good and honest, too good and honest for his own good. But he saw the same qualities in few others. imo. The constant refrain in his letters and journals sometimes leaves me wondering if he, like Lady MacBeth, ' doth protest too much'.

Ella Gibbons
December 5, 2001 - 03:27 pm
Oh, golly, JONATHAN, don't get started on Nixon or we may never get back to JA and GW and the birth of our nation! What a time to have lived through, right, and we all did and came through okay.

When I think of what George W. had to face as he took office, the Vietnam War and that era's problems take a back seat. Both George Washington and John Adams had such doubts as they entered office; GW writing - "May Heaven assist me, for at present I see nothing but clouds and darkness before me." JA "was apprehensive because he saw clearly how much there was to be apprehensive about."

You want to reach back into their lives somehow and tell them how well they did - it's okay, fellows, the country is still here and still free - thanks to you!

"With issues of such immense national consequence to be addressed, policies to be considered and resolved, precedents to establish, laws to enact, an entire new structure for the governance of the nation to be brought into being"


Colossal problems! I would immediately appoint committees for everything wouldn't you? Hahahaha

And JA arrived in NYC in a "velvet-lined barge and landing to a stupendous ovation." I wonder if his clothes matched the velvet? Who else got to ride in the barge with him? But I certainly agree with him that public officials should be paid for as he said "all offices would be monopolized by the rich; the poor and the middling ranks would be excluded and an aristocratic despotism would immediately follow."

Good common sense, John Adams! I would hate to think of the presidents we would have lost if they should serve without pay, as was espoused by Washington and Franklin, both wealthy men. I think the salary of our president is now $400,000 - am I correct, Harold? Wasn't it doubled not long ago? I have no idea what the vice president receives, do you?

TIGER TOM - are you reading about Franklin's life? Is it a good book? One you might like to discuss?

Was it Louise or BABI that brought his illegitimate son? Our book has something in it about that, but am in a hurry right now, can't look it up. Going out to dinner with friends.

later, ella

Harold Arnold
December 5, 2001 - 04:42 pm
Jonathan, I agree with Ella in not wanting to get this into an open discussion of the Nixon impeachment., but I agree he was not a weak president though as you pointed out his tragic flaws compromising integrity and honesty led as a matter of course to his forced resignation.

Ella, you are right the Presidents salary was raised $200,000 to $400,000 per year effective Jan 21, 2001. George W. Bush became the first President to benefit from the increase. The Vice President’s Salary was increased to $186,300 a rather modest increase from the previous $171,500 on the same date. In either case these salaries are a mere fraction of the annual compensation generally paid CEO’s and other top executives of large corporations. For more details see President/Vice President Pay & Benefits

TigerTom
December 5, 2001 - 09:42 pm
Ella,



Among many other books I have by my bed and armchair in my room is the one titled: "The First American, the life and Times of Benjamin Franklin." I also have Founding Brothers which has a section on Franklin. I have always been a fan of his. He was intelligent, witty, generous, outgoing, and a great human being. Next to Jefferson he is my hero from that time and place. I like him because he was a complete man. He worked hard and played hard. Sure, he liked the ladies and they liked him. I can't fault him for that. They were one of MY major weaknesses when I was young and single. I envy him that the ladies continued to find him attractive even into old age. that must have been flattering to him even if they were having him on a bit. He probably knew that but liked to flirt with them anyway.
Franklin was no fool. He may have presented the image of a simple man from the sticks but he wasn't. I would have hated to played poker with him. I would have walked away with nothing left. He knew his strengths and weaknesses and used them both.
I am not very far into the book, yet. However, so far it is good and promises to be good throughout the whole book. Discuss it? Perhaps John Adams can be followed by a discussion of this Franklin book.

Tom

Ella Gibbons
December 6, 2001 - 08:04 am
Thanks, Tom, for that reply, we'll consider the book about Franklin at some later date. Back to Chapter Eight and a few remarks; some of which all of you have considered, but….

I didn't know that Pierre Charles L'Enfant, a young French engineer, designed a capital building in NYC - - isn't he the same fellow who later laid out the design of Washington, D.C.? I wonder what ever happened to the lovely building, when was it torn down and why? The first building to be built in America as a capital, I would have thought it could have been saved!

Dear George W. arrived in a canary-yellow carriage pulled by six white horses which was followed by a long column of New York militia in full dress. What pomp and circumstance!! And George W. added "So Help Me God" to his oath of office and kissed the Bible.

It's probably a personal choice but I think most presidents do add those four words to their oath, don't they? I know they put their hand on a Bible. Harold - Harold - can you answer this one?

I kept thinking as I read this chapter that if only JA had remembered what his dear wife, Abigail, had said on her voyage to England - IT IS NOT TITLES THAT GIVE MEN PREEMINENCE IN AMERICA - historians, perhaps, would have been kinder to him.

The disagreements, the discordance, the misunderstandings between JA and TJ, upon his return from France, just piled up one on top of the other and how mournful JA sounds when he sums up his situation with the words "To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable." Even letters exchanged between Adams and Jefferson did not heal the rift.

I can't help but think if the two of them could have sat down together alone in a room and talked everything over, the problems between could have been solved. Do any of you feel that way? They had been good friends for all those years in Europe, taken a tour of English gardens together, certainly they could have ironed out their differences.

Maybe, as JONATHAN suggested earlier, the cooling effect of some ice cream could have brought them to a more satisfactory relationship. Loved that remark, Jonathan.

Dear Abigail is such a delightful wordsmith - I must quote what she says about George Washington:

"He has so happy a faculty of appearing to accommodate and yet carrying his point that if he was not really one of the best intentioned men in the world, he might be a very dangerous one. He is polite with dignity, affable without formality, distant without haughtiness, grave without austerity, modest, wise and good.


What a guy! JA has nothing but good to say about him:

"He seeks information from all quarters and judges more independently than any man I ever saw".


I know very little of George Washington, however, has anyone read a book about him lately? The usual things I know, all to the good, as a boy chopping down the cherry tree (has that story been proven to be false?), and the positions he held, Mt. Vernon, but of the man himself?

Later….eg

Ella Gibbons
December 6, 2001 - 08:24 am
We would be remiss if we did not at least mention Alexander Hamilton - a man who certainly exemplifies the "rags to riches" story of an American. Here is a brief biography of him, such an interesting fellow, a genius, one that possessed great charm and ambition. But one that worked out the first COMPROMISE between the factions of government - a political move that was destined to be repeated endlessly in Congress, a situation that is characterized by the saying "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine."

Alexander Hamilton

And with the "assumption of all federal and states' debt, the establishment of a national bank, and the capital moved to Philadelphia for ten years with a promise of a relocation to a site on the Potomac, the nation seemed to be on a strong foundation.

What do all of you know or remember about Alexander Hamilton? Seems to be a romantic figure in history, don't you agree, particularly with his dramatic duel and death.

Harold Arnold
December 6, 2001 - 10:22 am
Ella, to me, Alexander Hamilton comes off as the prototype of what we know today as the scheming politician. As I noted in an earlier post I remember him from my high school history book as favoring a monarchy with George Washington on the throne. I chuckle to my self at the thought of the founding fathers rolling back the clock exchanging George III, for George I. He was certainly a high federalist.

I also noted in a post a couple of days ago that he is generally considered quite successful as the Secretary of the Treasury during the Washington Administration. Early on in the first Washington Administration, Hamilton proposed a comprehensive financial plan for the new republic a core provision of which was the Federal Governments’ assumption of the States’ revolutionary war debt. The South led by Madison bitterly opposed this core provision since most southern states particularly Virginia had already retired most of their war indebtedness. The matter was resolved by the compromise of 1790, which was arranged by TJ who on Sunday, June 20, 1790 invited Madison and Hamilton to dinner at his New York residence during which a compromise was worked out. Joseph Ellis describes this dinner and the resulting compromise in Chapter 2, “The Dinner” in his “Founding Brothers” title. Under the compromise Madison agreed to drop his strong opposition to the bill (although he would not himself vote for the assumption provision) and in exchange the Federalists would support the location of the permanent national capitol on the Potomac (Washington, DC). This compromise enabled both provisions to become law, and 10 years later Washington, DC became the capitol of the nation.

It was not to long (as we see in later chapters) before Hamilton acquired military ambitions and became second in command of the Army. If during the Adams Administration the US had actually got in a war with France, General Hamilton would probable have held high army command and put to a real test. Also during the second Washington Administration his schemes seemed to center on expansions into Spanish territories particularly Florida. Prior to my reading our McC book, I always had Sympathy for Hamilton because of the way he was killed by Aaron Burr in a duel. After the reading of our later chapters, I am not so sure that Aaron Burr did not do the young nation a great favor in removing Hamilton from the scene.

See also Chapter 1, “The Duel” in the Ellis, “Founding Brothers” book. This chapter describes the duel and the circumstances that brought it about with all the gory detail.

Ella Gibbons
December 6, 2001 - 12:56 pm
Hi HAROLD! What I found most interesting in this chapter, or one of the most interesting things, is several references to what is in the future for America - it started way back there in 1792!

Abigail wrote to her sister, Mary, "I firmly believe if I live ten years longer, I shall see a division of the Southern and Northern states, unless more candor and less intrigue, of which I have no hopes, should prevail."

And in urging GW to serve for a second term, Jefferson told him - "North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on."

Prophetic!

Jonathan
December 6, 2001 - 12:59 pm
Putting it that way, Harold, just points out the most interesting thing about getting at the truth of something, doesn't it? One does change one's mind, as new light is shed. You mentioned the debt- assumption compromise reached at the dinner to which Jefferson invited Madison and Hamilton. When I first read about it in the book, I wondered: where was Adams, why would he have been left out in such a crucial issue? Did his office in the government rule it out? Did Adams even have a position on that? Between '76 and '96, Adams seems so uninvolved or peripheral in affairs. Or am I wrong?

Ella, you suggest...'if the two of them (JA and TJ) could have sat down together, alone in a room, and talked everything over', and I have to think of what Adams said to Jefferson in a letter: "You and I have never had a serious conversation together that I can recollect concerning the nature of government".(431)

It wasn't my intention to start a debate on the Nixon impeachment; but only to suggest that we might better appreciate John Adams' historical fate at the hands of his opponents and detractors, the unattractive image he left behind. No one did more than he in the struggle for independence in the 70's; and after that never seems to have had anything but the best interests of his country at heart. So why the slander, and the sorry reputation, as the reward for all his endeavors? Is it just irony, that the one, who wanted above all to stay above party politics, fell a victim to the worst features of the political divisions of the nineties. I'm finding it more interesting all the time, trying to understand the issues and personalities clashing with each other. The Nixon era seems almost tame by comparison. How John Adams fared in all the turmoil of his times is subject-matter enough for a discussion, I agree. But how about discussing the rest of the Adams Dynasty later on?

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
December 6, 2001 - 01:34 pm
" I'm finding it more interesting all the time, trying to understand the issues and personalities clashing with each other. The Nixon era seems almost tame by comparison", JONATHAN said.

Hahaha - do you know how many books have been written about Nixon and all the related problems of that era? I wouldn't even want to know.

But I recall, JONATHAN, that back a few posts ago you mentioned the newspaper accounts of Nixon and his dirty tricks and contrasted those with the newspaper accounts and dirty tricks of this era in history. I just finished reviewing the story of the National Gazette - pretty vicious all around on the part of our principals in this book.435

Harold Arnold
December 6, 2001 - 08:46 pm
Jonathon, I’m not surprised JA was left out. Based on my reading of the account in “Founding Brothers” it appears TJ and Hamilton just happened to meet while waiting to see the President. Jefferson was Secretary of State; Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury. Jefferson at the State Dept was not primarily involved in the issue of the financial plan save as a citizen, as a Virginian, and perhaps as a friend of Madison. I think he just wanted to be helpful, to be a peacemaker so he used the dinner to which he invited the two leaders of the opposing camps. The two together in a conciliatory atmosphere with a mediator offered a chance for compromise, a chance that was realized

And where was John Adams. It was 1790 and JA was Vice President. I think it was already becoming apparent that the Vice President was little more than a figurehead Presiding Officer of the Senate. He was Presiding Officer of the Senate by grace of the Constitution with no real power so there was no reason for him at the dinner.

The United States is not the only republic that has had trouble providing for a successor President should an incumbent die or otherwise vacates the office. In the 1950’s, the new French Constitution of the Fourth Republic solved the problem by not having any Vice President at all. An American reporter asked Charles de Gaulle as President why they had no VP. “What would he do,” de Gaille replied, “we’d just put him-up in a castle where he’d be bored to death.” I suspect the question of VP duties was a tough nut to crack at the Constitution Convention and in desperation someone came up with presiding over the senate. Only during the last 50 years has the VP been given a greater role within the executive department. It is said when FDR died elevating Harry Truman to the high office, he knew nothing of the atom bomb under development a weapon he was called upon to authorize 4 months later. I sometimes think each successive administration since Eisenhower in the 1950s has increased the importance of the VP within the Executive office, definitely steps in the right direction

richsim1
December 7, 2001 - 06:13 am
I had the pleasure recently of meeting David McCullough at a St. Petersburg Times-sponsored Book Fair at Eckerd College. He is as impressive in appearance as he is as a biographical writer. He told the group, about 400 of us, that he spent 6.5 years researching and writing Adams. One of his quotes I have noted was" "When we read Adams' letters, we are 'hearing' how he talked." Another quote at the Fair from McCullough: "The past is another country". Dick Simpson, ST. Petersburg, Florida richsim@tampabay.rr.com

richsim1
December 7, 2001 - 06:14 am
I had the pleasure recently of meeting David McCullough at a St. Petersburg Times-sponsored Book Fair at Eckerd College. He is as impressive in appearance as he is as a biographical writer. He told the group, about 400 of us, that he spent 6.5 years researching and writing Adams. One of his quotes I have noted was" "When we read Adams' letters, we are 'hearing' how he talked." Another quote at the Fair from McCullough: "The past is another country". Richard Simpson, ST. Petersburg, Florida richsim@tampabay.rr.com

Ella Gibbons
December 7, 2001 - 07:17 am
THERE HE IS - RICHARD SIMMONS, WELCOME!

I just answered your email and I come into our discussion and you are here! We are so pleased that you are joining us - are you, by any chance, the Richard Simmons - the one and only exercise guru? Haha

The name is the same, and perhaps you have been asked that so many times you are tired of it? At any rate, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US !

And you are telling us that McCullough said John Adams talked just as he wrote! We know he talked at great length and at every opportunity he had but I would have thought his writings were somehow different, more, more, more......... (my mind is somewhere else this morning - fill in the blanks!)

Do stick around, Richard, we have a few more chapters to go in our discussion and we want - we need - your input!

Ella Gibbons
December 7, 2001 - 07:26 am
Are you all ready to move on to CHAPTER NINE?

Perhaps a bit weary of reading and listening to the problems of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison?

So am I, so let's move on…….

~OLD OAK~


It was a scene few who were present would ever forget! Here were the three who, more than any others, had made the Revolution - Washington, Adams and Jefferson.

So - how do all of you rate our first President's performance? Was he perfect?

Harold has three questions in the heading and as we proceed onward to the remainder of the book, let's attempt to answer them, okay?

Harold Arnold
December 7, 2001 - 09:24 am
This is one last comment on Chapter 8. I call your attention to the second paragraph in the middle of page 460, which is a short summary of JA’s 8-year service as VP. This paragraph notes that the 8-years he spent in this office was the longest period that he spent in any post throughout his life. Of more significance is the count of tie votes that JA cast which McC gives as 31. This strikes me as more ties (about 4 per year) than would be common today. I will see if I can find the number of votes All Gore cast, deciding ties over his recent term and report back.

In McC’s opinion, which I agree with, JA served as VP extremely well. To day the ability to cast the deciding vote in a tie situation is probably the most significant power attached to the office. Presumably provision have been made for our present VP to vote when a tie occurs during this period when security requires his isolation from public view.

Ella Gibbons
December 7, 2001 - 11:29 am
Hi HAROLD, do let us know about Gore's tie votes and I agree with everything you said. Finally, JA learned how to adjust to remaining silent during Washington's 2nd term of office; somehow in the last chapter it discusses this. Can't find the place now, but it must have been difficult for him.

And just where is Dick Cheney? I can't believe they must keep him isolated - the president and his wife have been shown at various functions on TV with apparent safety. Could it be a matter of Cheney's health?

Louise H
December 7, 2001 - 11:40 am
You made a good point re: Cheney, Ella. I hadn't thought of that, but he might be a lot worse off with his heart condition than the "official statement" indicates. Louise

BaBi
December 7, 2001 - 12:20 pm
I wouldn't consider Cheney isolated. I can recall seeing him two or three times recently on TV, tho' not in public settings. I have the impression he is participating in discussions and is kept fully informed of all developments. We are just not going to hear of any publc appearances by the gentleman for the interim.

I see I am falling behind in my reading. (Reading another book at the same time.) I'll have to do some catch-up reading...Babi

Jonathan
December 7, 2001 - 12:51 pm
Ella...problems?...we ain't seen nothin yet! It becomes so problematical in Chapter 9, it's downright laughable. Abigail wishes perdition on those evildoers, without, however, as she insists, 'bearing neither malice or ill-will towards anyone, not even the most deluded'.

The problems facing the new President and his wife come with the Inauguration.

First the French problem: 'the next morning, Adams was hit with stunning news. The French Directory had refused to receive General Pickney. Forced to leave Paris as though he were an undesirable alien...'

Secondly, problems with his cabinet. 'I see a scene of ambition beyond all my former suspicions or imagination....Jealousies and rivalries...never stared me in the face in such horrid forms as in the present.'

Thirdly, problems with the house, vacated by Washington, making way for the new President. 'This house has been a scene of the most scandalous drinking and disorder among the servants that I ever heard of'.

Fourthly, the problem of making ends meet. 'They would be more "pinched" than ever in their lives, he warned Abigail'. (Abigail is still in Quincy, nursing John's dying mother.)

Fifthly, problems with the job. 'The work was more taxing than he had prepared for, "very dry, dull," "perplexing" and "incessant"'.

Sixthly, the probems with war clouds. 'War clouds gathered over the capital - to the angry indignation of the Republicans...'

Lastly, but far, far from being least, that pestiferous press problem, reporting, along with much else, that a '"certain ex-Secretary" (Hamilton) was secretly preaching war to further his political ambitions'.

Is it any wonder that all this ended in one more letter...to Abigail, to come quickly, he was in sore need of her advice and support.

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
December 7, 2001 - 07:53 pm
THANKS, LOUISE AND BABI for dropping in - we'll never know until a few years from now what is going on in the White House with all those politicians. Not until they get out of office and make a million bucks for writing their memoirs! DON'T STAY AWAY TOO LONG!

JONATHAN - I can't deal with - "problems?...we ain't seen nothin yet! It becomes so problematical in Chapter 9, it's downright laughable Not tonight!

Where do you come up with these words? " pestiferous" I intend to look that one up, but it's a lovely phrase, goes together so well- "pestiferous press problem." Hahaha That's about as bad as Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of ........ something, was it negativism?

Meantime here's a quote from JA - what do think of this one? "..extravagant popularity is not the road to public advantage?" Is that true today?

Harold Arnold
December 7, 2001 - 09:15 pm
Inaugurated as President in March 1801 JA did something no newly elected President would do today. He kept the Washington cabinet. According to McC, JA was convinced that this was the surest way to preserve Federal harmony.. “Washington had appointed them and I knew it would turn the world upside down if I removed any one of them,” he later wrote. That the new President coming into office would feel this way certainly indicates the high regard that the country held for Washington

This was probably a big mistake far as it turned out JA had continued trouble with these department heads and they exhibited little in the way of loyalty to him. Though all were members of the Federalist Party, at least three of the four were high Federalists who considered Alexander Hamilton their leader.

Since this was the first time there was a change of administration there was no tradition of Cabinet members resigning on the expiration of the term of the President who appointed them. To day a newly elected President would most certainly appoint his own Cabinet ministers. If the new president is from a different party than the old you can bet there will be a clean sweep. If the new president is of the same party, quite likely many new faces will emerge and if a few of the old group are reappointed they will likely change portfolios in the new administration. I think the only exception to this rule during the last half of the 20th century was in 1963 when LBJ succeeded the assonated JFK, In that case the existing cabinet was retained and most were continued when LBJ was elected to a full term in 1964. The same circumstance followed the resignation of Richard Nixon with the new President Ford retaining the old cabinet.

Harold Arnold
December 7, 2001 - 09:18 pm
Inaugurated as President in March 1801 JA did something no newly elected President would do today. He kept the Washington cabinet. According to McC, JA was convinced that this was the surest way to preserve Federal harmony.. “Washington had appointed them and I knew it would turn the world upside down if I removed any one of them,” he later wrote. That the new President coming into office would feel this way certainly indicates the high regard that the country held for Washington

This was probably a big mistake far as it turned out JA had continued trouble with these department heads and they exhibited little in the way of loyalty to him. Though all were members of the Federalist Party, at least three of the four were high Federalists who considered Alexander Hamilton their leader.

Since this was the first time there was a change of administration there was no tradition of Cabinet members resigning on the expiration of the term of the President who appointed them. To day a newly elected President would most certainly appoint his own Cabinet ministers. If the new president is from a different party than the old you can bet there will be a clean sweep. If the new president is of the same party, quite likely many new faces will emerge and if a few of the old group are reappointed they will likely change portfolios in the new administration. I think the only exception to this rule during the last half of the 20th century was in 1963 when LBJ succeeded the assonated JFK, In that case the existing cabinet was retained and most were continued when LBJ was elected to a full term in 1964. The sane circumstance followed the resignation of Richard Nixon with the new President Ford retaining the old cabinet.

Jonathan
December 7, 2001 - 09:50 pm
Ella

The phrase 'pestiferous press problem' is what I thought I heard the President say, as he got to the end of the list of things demanding his attention. It sounded that way. It could have been spluttering and sputtering to other ears.

Don't even try to deal with the problems. Half of it is just kvetching anyways. Should I delete the post. For my part, I enjoy the fascination of this most unusual man. I'm more impressed all the time by what McCullough did with the material available to him, once he decided that it was John Adams and not Thomas Jefferson who would be the subject of his book. I think Rosenfeld was mistaken when he suggested that McC was trying to present America with a hero.

Jonathan

ALF
December 8, 2001 - 06:26 am
It is so strange that in reading different things, how many times I come across something now that reminds me of JA and our fore fathers/

"No one of understanding says that our system works perfectly. It does not. The human race is not perfect. Nevertheless, the movement of a true civilization is toward freedom rather than regimentation. This is our ideal." - Herbert Hoover

Ella Gibbons
December 8, 2001 - 07:18 am
NO, NO, JONATHAN, don't you remove your post - I was kidding you - was tired last night, that's all. You summed it up very well, parts of it, there are still problems - how can you be in government and not have difficulties? Well, just plain living is difficult at times, eh?

Thanks, HAROLD, for reminding us of Ford and LBJ, same party, same cabinet. What a fuss the country made of Ford pardoning Nixon, remember that?

Washington would be stunned wouldn't he at party politics today. He warned against the "baneful effects of the spirit of party." He said that in governments of "popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy."

baneful effects - rankness - yes, yes, and yes

The only time we see bipartisanship is in times of the direst troubles in the government - that scene on the steps of the Capitol after 9/11 when the whole Senate stood together in harmony was a one-time affair. I think they sang God Bless America, didn't they?

Louise H
December 8, 2001 - 07:54 am
Good morning, I have'nt posted for a couple of days. I had a few computer problems to straighten out, and then I had things to do around the "ranch". That quote from JA, I think it was "extravagant admiration? was not the the way to public advantage," or something like that. If I understand it correctly, it means that the fact that a large part of the population might admire a man/politican/public figure, etc. greatly it doesn't mean that he is capable of making policy which is best for the country. Do you agree? Or did I interpret this wrong?

P. S. I think Founding Brothers would be an excellent choice to discuss after JA - it is on the same theme, and possibly readers might be bored, and want to get on to another theme. But Ellis takes an overview of almost the same problems that McC discussed - it is just that Ellis takes an overview, looking at all the people involved in the problems, where McC by reason of his subject, necessarily had to look at the political problems of the day from the point of view of how JA felt about them, how they affected his actions and career, etc. Louise

BaBi
December 8, 2001 - 09:35 am
"Extravagant popularity" is certainly the way to gain the popular vote, and is naturally desired by office-seeking politicians. But it is not necessarily to the advantage of the people, which I believe is what JA was saying. He would rather do what is best for the people and the country, than what would make him popular.

He wrote a line I would like to see etched in some conspicuous spot in the halls of Congress: "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." I believe that some wars have been necessary, but I suspect they are in the minority.

Jonathan, that was a most discouraging beginning for President Adams, wasn't it. The job obviously needs a strong character and firm commitment. I'm surprised, now I think of it, that no president has ever walked off the job in frustration and exasperation! ..Babi

Louise H
December 8, 2001 - 12:46 pm
Babi, I was thinking about what you said about most wars being unnecessary.

I think the best way to describe wars in general is that they ae "inevitable". Because most wars do not arise from a struggle between good and evil, they are rather the result of the "vices" for lack of a better word, in the minds of leaders of nations.

For example, they are greedy, they (and here I am talking about leaders, whose thinking is filtered down to the general population in some form of propaganda) want certain lands or natural assets which will contribute to their wealth in particular, and in some ways to the wealth of the country. They are proud, they want to acquire new territory, to show the strength and majesty of their country - and their own at the same time. They are vengeful, they want land that their ancestors once owned, 200, 300, 800, 1,000 yrs. ago. Very often they "claim" the land was owned by their ancestors, but scholars often can't uphold that claim, they can only say that their ancestors probably were on the claimed land, along with other tribes, and it isn't possible to say who had the land first. They ae religious fanatics, claiming that God has "given" the land to them - I havent seen any deeds signed by God - and trying to prove this by quoting obscure religious texts, hundreds or thousands of years old, about which we don't even know the true author of the text.

Some wars can be justified. If Great Britain and the U. S. had not determined to fight the Nazis, it would have been a much different world. The greater Part of Europe would have been ruled by the Nazis, Great Britain would have been under their domination, and the U.S. would have had to form pacts, and trade with them, although we would not likely have been ruled by them. I don't think anybody would question the justice of this war.

At the moment we are fighting a war which has been occasioned partly by the fact that the Muslim/Middle East world has not shared in the benefits that came about from the Age of Enlightmant, and the Industrial Age (I know, they brought problems as well, but life in the Western world has largely been blessed by the activities of these centuries. And the war is partly because of the short sighted policies of this country over the last 25, 30, 40 yrs. etc.

So we are faced with the population of many nations who hate us, and are willing to work, and struggle, and give up their own lives if by doing that, they can destroy us. I don't imagine it is possible to sit down with these people and explain what nice guys we really are, and how we want to be friends now. So we must fight and kill as many of them as possible. This will have the additional advantage of teaching a lesson to those who survive - they will still hate us, of course, but they will have learned to move circumspectly where we are concerned. The author, Bernard Lewis, said in effect that the middle east saw us move out of places like Somalia, and didn't understand why we did it - they assumed we were afraid,and decided we were weak, and "easy pickins". He said frankly, they have to learn to be afraid of us again.

These are grim words but I think they are the truth (altho this probably isn't the place for them, and for that I apologize) but I think they are true, and any thoughtful, reasonable people will agree. Louise

Jonathan
December 8, 2001 - 10:12 pm
Louise

There is no need to apologize for such a thoughtful post, on a subject of such great importance. And I believe this is the place to question the causes and purposes of wars, and the reasons why peoples, whether as clans, or tribes, or nations, or alliances, go to war. No doubt you are right that mankind's vices, such as greed, pride, vengeance, and religious fanaticism, even if, as you say, aroused with propaganda generated by war-mongers with their private agendas. We easily convince ourselves that some wars, at least, are justified. The war to end all wars, WWWI, is now thought of by some, as the most senseless of all wars. You make a very good statement, at a time when much of the world is wondering what the US military action will lead to. But surely no one is in any doubt about its inevitability, given the provocation.

But the main reason why I think your thoughtful post is right for this discussion is because of the immanence of war, and the strong feelings in the country, pro and con, which faced John Adams as President. Perhaps the chance to take a close look at his policies and determination to keep America out of a war, (surely in the best interests of the new nation) and a close look at the others who seemed determined to have a war, will have as a result some meaning for today. Your post is very relevant to the times and very timely for this discussion.

Jonathan

Harold Arnold
December 9, 2001 - 08:49 am
Louise H. After your short absence, you have come back with a bang. I welcome your comment both in your message #518 concerning the Ellis, "Founding Brothers" title and your comments in message #520 on War. Regarding "Founding Brothers," I too enjoyed this book and while it is not as comprehensive or as centered on a single theme like our present book, I thought its half dozen stories from our history very worthwhile reading for modern Americans. Please feel free to incorporate comments from it in our present discussion.

Regarding your comments in message #520, I think your writings are your well thought out honest conclusions on a complex subject and while I may not agree with every word, I find nothing in the general conclusion with which I would disagree. Also I think your comment was a timely extension of a thought in the previous message,#519 relative to JA’s determination to avoid an unnecessary war with France even though his peace policy was very unpopular with the majority of his own party. Thank you for making these comments.

Harold Arnold
December 9, 2001 - 10:27 am
The most important issue of the four-year John Adams administration was the threat of war with France. This has rightly been the theme of several of the preceding posts. JA certainly took a courageous and unpopular stand in refusing to ask Congress for a Declaration of War in the face of the strong pro war element in his own party. This is the element referred to as the “High Federalists” by McC. It was led by Alexander Hamilton who had been appointed by Washington as second in command of the army. For us reading from history, 200 years later it is obvious that JA was right in his avoidance of conflict. There was never much danger of a French Invasion of the U.S. and none after Nelson sunk much of French naval resources at the Battle of the Nile. Nevertheless JA’s unpopular pursuit of peace in stout opposition to the wishes of strong elements of his own Federalist Party undoubtedly cost him re-election to a second term in 1800.

Remember the stanzas in the Bob Dylan song, “God on our side” read, “World War I, it came and it went, Our reason for fighting, I never did get…….” If the late 18th century war with France had of occurred as Hamilton and his high Federalists wanted,, I think the poet would probable have used these lines earlier to introduce his thoughts on the war with France.

Ella Gibbons
December 9, 2001 - 01:28 pm
Thank you all so much each and everyone (oh, golly, I'm beginning to sound like Tiny Tim - haha), but I sincerly mean it. I have spent the last half hour reading your thoughtful posts and how I would respond if I had the time.

However, I need to tell you that I am going away for a week with my daughter for a needed rest, relaxation, a little shopping and time together. When we can do this, we take the opportunity and this year we can. Actually we are going to Quebec City, Canada, as the accommodations there are reasonable in the winter - everyone in their RIGHT mind goes south. Neither of us like crowds so we are off to ourselves.

Both HAROLD AND TIGER TOM will be here as Discussion Leaders to carry on and I'll be looking forward to reading all your comments when I get home on the 17th. So, until then I bid you all adieu (is that French? I've packed my dictionary) and have a good time here with the book. I know you will - ENJOY AND THANKS AGAIN TO ALL OF YOU for making this one of the best experience I've ever had here in the B&L of Seniornet.

BaBi
December 9, 2001 - 02:03 pm
Louise, your views on the causes of war are very much like my own. I especialy liked your use of the word "inevitable". It expresses so well the idea that a war can be unnecessary, but still happen for all the reasons you listed.

Harold, your questions for this chapter are really tough! I don't think I want to even try to untangle all the threads of the constitution, and assign them to an originator. I think I'll just sit back and read what everybody else has to say on the subject. (Grown mentally soft and lazy, that's what.) ...Babi

Harold Arnold
December 10, 2001 - 12:34 pm
John Adams is often critized for signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress in 1798. Moreover John Adams as President used these laws to repress opposition Republican editors who had been critical of his administration. Do you agree with the implication by McC on page 506, “that it is hard to imagine him (JA) not taking a measure of satisfaction from the prospect of the tables turned on those who had tormented him for so long?” As a matter of fact a number of these press opponents were charged, tried and convicted and sentenced to prison terms where they remained to be pardoned by TJ when he became president.

Also have you ever seen a more bitter quotation from Abigail than her comment to Mary Cranch quoted on page 506 concerning the justice of the sentences imprisoning editors exercising presumed 1st amendment privileges? Incidentally the “ Bache” she was referring to was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache who had been John Q’s classmate at the school in Paris.

Our 2nd President and his lady were no “civil libertarians” in the modern sense!

Bill H
December 10, 2001 - 02:32 pm
Harold Arnold has given me permission to post here.

I’m planing a discussion of the book “The Arrogance of Power”: The secret life of the late Presdent Richard M Nixon. I still must determine the date, however it will not be untill after the first of the year. I hope to start some time in February 2002. I do hope you will all join in this discussion.

Thanks again Harold.

Bill H

Louise H
December 10, 2001 - 04:25 pm
Harold, I don't think he was a strong "civil libertarian" - I guess he knew human nature very well. He should be around today and see the abuses "civil libertarians" perpetrate, or try to, in the name of civil rights.

When I served on a jury, many moons ago, like 50 moons, the prosecution was allowed to mention any previous convictions of the defendant. Not arrests by themselves, but cases where he/she was convicted. Today one can't bring in "prior bad acts". That makes no sense to me. If a man is being tried for "breaking and entering," say, and has been convicted of the same crime in the past, it makes it more likely that he did commit the crime, other evidence being available, of course. But you can't use that information today. Louise

Jonathan
December 10, 2001 - 08:43 pm
Louise, I'm not sure I can agree with you that a jury should be told about previous convictions and 'prior bad acts'. Isn't it a juror's sole duty to find or establish the facts in the specific case before the court? You wouldn't want to convict someone on probability, would you? While determining the facts, you wouldn't want your judgment influenced by being told by the prosecutor that the prisoner 'has done it before', would you? It doesn't seem fair somehow. Naturally, on conviction, the judge, in sentencing, takes into account the convicted person's record.

I believe our justice system in Canada is substantially like yours. Our criminal law is, I think it's fair to say, basically like yours, in its principles of criminality, procedures, and rules of evidence, etc. Our lawyers might even cite US judges' decisions. And pick up ideas in American courtroom scenes, a la Perry Mason.... I seem to remember some keen interest here in the recent developments in jury selection in the US.

On the other hand, I'm still puzzling over the implications of an order posted on the Courthouse door in a rivertown in the Hudson Valley, NY: 'No Guns Beyond This Point'. Would that have anything to do with civil rights? You do come up with thought-provoking posts.

Harold, I have to go and give some serious thought to the qestions you ask in #526. In John Adams life this episode seems to define his character and his presidency more than anything else, it seems to me, in the judgment of many of his contemporaries and later generations. I'm amazed at how vitriolic and ruthless his critics were.

Bill H, Good luck with your plans to discuss The Arrogance of Power. I'll admit to a wee bit of sympathy and even admiration for Richard Nixon, so with another opportunity to learn more of American political history...why, let's talk.

Jonathan

Louise H
December 11, 2001 - 08:04 am
JONATHAN, I think the prior criminal acts can logically be taken into account, if there is other sound evidence - that is a tough point, I know - it has to be strong evidence, not "eyewitness" which I think is very bad evidence. People really don't remember what a person looks like if they see a man/woman for only a few minute, or seconds, in a stressful situation.

But if there was strong circumstantial evidence, I would add to that that this man had committed this kind of crime before - considering of course if he had one offence only, and seemed to have straightened himself out which would change the "weight" of his previous crime, or if he was a habitual criminal with numerous convictions, which would have a lot more weight, of course. But I do think a previous criminal record should be entered into the evidence, and should be weighed along with other evidence - having less or more weight depending on the circumstances. Years ago we had a man in Mass. a respected citizen, who was tried in N. H. for vehicular homicide, he had killed a family of four, parents and children, while driving while drunk. He was convicted, and it was made general knowledge by the papers -I don't remember if it was before or after the trial - that he had been convicted of drunken driving in Mass. something like 17 times - and he had lost his licence around 10 or 12 times. I wouldn't really need too much evidence in this case to come to a decision.

As for convicting on probability, it would depend on how strongly I felt he committed the crime. If the evidence was enough to convince me that he PROBABLY committed the crime, and if there were other factors, such as his past history, which indicated he would do a crime like the one he was charged with, then I would convict him..

Say a man has a past history of beating his wife. She has had to have medical treatment a number of times in the past, but she never accuses him, from fear or whatever. The doctors who treated her in an emergency ward describe her injuries. Then she is found dead, perhaps at the foot of a flight of stairs, with injuries consistant with a fall, and also consistent with a beating. The man's relatives claim he was with them at the time she alledgely fell. She does not have a history of any medical problem that would make her lose her balance, say, but that could not be thoroughly ruled out, as medical problems can arise without previous evidence. So, how would you vote.? For me, that's quite enough evidence - the "probability" in this case weighs heavily and I would convict.

As for the sign on the door of a N. Y. courthouse "no guns allowed beyond this point" - I suppose that is meant to insure that somebody who is annoyed at the judge doesn't take a shot at him. Also court officials probably arn't allowed to bring a gun into a courtroom - I've served on a few juries and I know the various baliffs, etc. are usually rather "laid back' and casual and perhaps one could get a gun away from them easily. It would be a tremendous step forward if we could ban guns in this country except in special circumstances. I don't understand the connection between guns and one's "civil rights" - To me, its a weapon and its use should be strictly limited. But I won't get started on guns, - I probably would never shut up. Louise

Alki
December 11, 2001 - 10:51 am
Thomas Jefferson is the great name here at the northwestern edge of America. The Pacific Ocean was Jefferson's goal for the Lewis and Clark Expedition to expand the US beyond all known geography. I am even on a local Jefferson memorial sculpture committee. Retirement has at last given me the time to become aware of our nation's critical beginning. But so far I had read nothing on Adams.

And so I have followed with interest the SeniorNet book review of David McCullough's John Adams, and yesterday found the book itself in an Oregon warehouse shopping center. Based on my SeniorNet exposure to it, I bought the book as a Christmas present to myself. I am bleary-eyed from reading it most of the night, but who cares when such a treat is found.

So much has interested me; especially the account of Adams accepting the request to defend the British soldiers and their captain against murder charges in the Custom House shooting. does that have any relation to today's crisis? I think that it does.

Another thought. The book relates how it was to lose so many friends and family over the years. How tragedy was always so near with smallpox, malaria, yellow fever, tuberculosis, alcoholisim. I live alone, am well over seventy, and have seen the death and tragic end of so many friends and family members. I find it so interesting to read of how people of that time managed to keep going in spite of it all.

About the art of letter writing. How does our e-mail fit into that catagory?

BaBi
December 11, 2001 - 12:12 pm
I wonder if there were libel or slander laws of any kind in JA's time. I suspect there were not. The articles attacking the President were not only vicious, they were also frequently out and out lies. And it troubled times such as America faced, they could with some accuracy be termed seditious.

I don't think JA would have taken such measures against an opposition paper that supported it's position honestly and accurately, however strongly it might have argued it's case. But when one considers how important a man's reputation and honor were held, there had to be some recourse against these.... words fail me!

Incidentally, does anyone have any idea what could have been the cause of the widespread deaths of cats? I've never heard of such a thing before? ...Babi

Harold Arnold
December 11, 2001 - 09:14 pm
It rained last night and this morning my telephone line was dead. This is the first chance I've had today to get on.

Ellen McFadden you are most welcome to join our group. We hope to hear from you often. I too have always considered TJ as my favorite founding fathers. Several years back (1998) there was a discussion on the TJ Biography, "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis. Also my first Book discussion was the Stephen Ambrose biography of Captain Lewis, "Undaunted Courage" This was a great biography and if you have not read it, I recommend it as a great book.

BaBi, I think libel/slander court actions were available in the courts in JA's time. Under the first amendment guaranteeing free press and free speech it is difficult if not impossible for a politician to support such action. Just proof that the allegation is false is not enough. JA had and used the Sedition Act, a remedy that was not available to either Bill Clinton or George Bush. An 18th century Jay Leno and David Letterman would both be in Federal Jails for their political humor.

Jonathan
December 12, 2001 - 11:33 pm
Harold's question of a few days ago (526)...'have you ever seen a more bitter quotation from Abigail?'...sent me off looking for an answer. One doesn't have to look far to find, not only bitterness, but a whole gamut of emotions aroused by her concern for the welfare of her husband and her country: irritation, frustration, hauteur, indignation, alarm, feigned indifference, sarcasm, and ridicule. Here's a sampling I found in a book by Edith B Gelles, dealing with Abigail's life and letters.

'Bache and his fellow journalists became irritants that Abigail increasingly focused upon in her correspondence, not only because they attacked her family...but because she reflected her husband's growing judgment that they represented a threat to the nation's safety. She dispelled some frustration by venting these feelings to Mary, using the term 'billingsgate' to describe the journalists' vituperative language.'

'She at first dismissed criticism with hauteur: "But I can read them all with a true Phylosiphical (sic) contempt"...Over time, however, her indignation mounted: "Ben Bache is as usual abusing the President," she wrote..."Scarcly (sic) a day passes but some such scurility appears in Bache's paper...(I)t has, like vice of every kind, a tendency to corrupt the morrals of the common people." Time passed, and she continued her running complaints to Mary. "You see by the papers that Bache has begun his old bilingsgate again," she wrote, and she cursed the journalist - "this lying wretch of a Bache." In time she became alarmed because the "lies and falsehoods" that were ciculated might endanger the president's "personal safety tho I have never before exprest it. With this temper in a city like this, materials for a Mob might be brought together in 10 minutes."'

'She, herself, was provoked to ridicule: "True French manners in Religion and politics is what he aims to introduce," she wrote, cursing Bache with as ugly an epithet as she could conjure.'

'Abigail began to advocate silencing the press. "Yet daringly do the vile incendaries keep up in Baches paper the most wicked and base, voilent & calumminiating abuse" (sic), she wrote. "It insults the Majesty of the Sovereign People...but nothing will have an Effect untill congress pass a Sedition Bill, which I presume they will do before they rise...The wrath of the public ought to fall upon their devoted heads." She meant Bache and his fellow journalists, whom one historian argues were "the most violent and vituperative that was to appear in a century and a half of American history."'

'"This Bache is cursing & abusing daily. If that fellow & his Agents, and all is not surpressed, we shall come to a civil war," was her dire prediction.'

'"Bearing neither malice or ill will...I wish the laws of our Country were competent to punish the stirer up of sedition, the writer and Printer of base unfounded calumny. This would contribute as much to the peace and harmony of our Country as any measure," she reasoned.'

'Abigail triumphantly hailed the acts: "Let the vipers cease to hiss. They will be destroyed with their own poison."'

'...she was convinced that foreign agents, especially French nationals, of whom there were many thousands in America, were using their influence to sabotage American interests at a critical juncture in foreign affairs. Her attitude toward journalists changed in the short time of several years from contempt to fear; she perceived them as dangerous not only to her family but to the nation. Her observations of events from within the executive orbit transformed her from a tolerant civil libertarian to a conservative on the issue of freedom of the press. "The greater part of the abuse leveld at the Government is from foreigners. Every Jacobin paper in the United States is Edited by a Foreigner," she declared. "What a disgrace to our Country." In the face of this threat, support of the sedition bill appeared patriotic to her.'

Did John Adams take 'a measure of satisfaction from the prospect of the tables turned on those who had tormented him'? By using the phrase 'it is hard to imagine him not', McC is in effect doing just that. Imagining, without solid proof. I believe not. Certainly no personal satisfaction. His primary concern was to preserve the Union. But he certainly had an out-of-control press agent.

And for the defense, Louise, in the case of the battered wife found dead at the foot of the flight of stairs...I believe the husband should expect, himself, to be found guilty of her murder. The crime cries out for justice. And his alibi is so blatantly unlikely, that I would hit him with perjury as well. Shouldn't be hard to prove, should it?

Jonathan

Louise H
December 13, 2001 - 08:14 am
JONATHAN, I don't know enough about the papers/broadsides, etc. of the day to be able to comment on the Alien and Sedition laws. I incline to think they interfere with freedom of the press. As for the Alien part, we are seeing now some of the damage that can be done by a casual, indifferent attitude towards aliens coming into our country. I am not against letting them in as some European countries are, but I do believe in strong surveillance of anybody who wants to come into this country, and if that slows up his/her entry, and is tiresome to endure, so be it.

As for the press, well, I kind of look at newspapers as essential for many reasons. So we have to endure the trash that is published much of the time, in the knowledge that not much is hidden from the press, and we will hear of "what is going on" --of course we have to evaluate and weigh and filter out the trash they publish from the nuggets of value.

As for the husband being found guilty, I imagine he would be, although if he could afford Johnny Cochran (sp?) for a lawyer, who knows?? I do think evidence of "prior bad deeds" should be accepted in principle, but it has to be weighed like any other evidence. If a man is on trial for armed robbery, and evidence is produced that he has served one or two prison sentences for these crimes, without too much time on the outside between the crimes, that would carry a lot of weight with me. If he had committed one crime of robbery,perhaps not armed, some years before and had a period of employment, then the crime would have to be considered, but probably would not count for very much.

I don't think we in this country see the kind of vituperative attacks against a political figure that existed in JA's times. There are attacks now, but they are disguised, more suble perhaps. In those days, a paper might call a man a "lying, thieving drunken s.o.b." - today an opposing politician might sorrowfully wonder, (in print) why his opponent was led into, and succumbed to a life of degradation, and abandonment of all ethical principles. He would speak "in sorrow more than in anger" - that is, the smart ones would. Louise <.B>

Harold Arnold
December 13, 2001 - 10:43 am
Jonathan, On reflection I think your are right, one really don’t have to look too long to find other examples of Abigail’s brisling in defense of people and ideas she held dear and important. You have made a strong case and I thank you for pointing it out.

I think the fact remains that the Alien and Sedition acts that John Adams signed into law and that he then used to imprison critical editors was stark violation of first amendments rights guaranteeing free speech and free press. True the 19th century editors were going beyond the political issues to the personal by emphasizing or even inventing personal weaknesses or shortcomings. JA and Abigail in a time when sovereign leaders were considered above such criticism could not accept it and hence the Sedition Act which JA used against his abusers.

In doing so the American Editors were not too much ahead of the press in England, particularly a few yeas later during the regency period between 1812 and 1820. This was the period of the great intellectual and political flowering of English culture. Even in the absence of a written 1st amendment the press was not always kind to English politicians and even Royals were not exempt. The Royal Dukes, sons of George III, later were dubbed “Victoria’s evil uncles.” Though the King himself was largely exempt, the Prince of Wales and his brothers were not and were frequently criticized for spendthrift habits and womanizing and other shortcomings. Though the English too had had their version of the Sedition Act, its use does not seem to have made as much impression as in the U.S. (See note below on J.B. Priestley, Prince of Pleasure, a social history of the regency period in England)

Also I doubt that modern day personal press criticism of U.S. political figures is any better than in JA’s day. In fact in view of the much improved communication system, it is probably much worse. Up until 9-11, President Bush was pictured nightly on the late night talk shows as a low I.Q. incompetent. (My what a difference a day made). Previously for the better part of eight years President Clinton had fared no better. While this was presented as comedy, its political impact is obvious. Perhaps politicians today have become more adept at the acceptance of criticism as just something that goes with the occupation. In any case JA and his lady were not, and the Sedition Act provided their answer.

Jonathan, In Canada does the Press and other media ridicule National leaders as freely as in the U.S? (I do recall from a decade back attending a Professional meeting in eastern Canada at which our host company, (a leading Electric Utility) as an entertainment event by a professional acting group, put on a short comic play on the subject of Canadian National identity. It poked fun and ridicules at leading Canadian political figures pretty much in the U.S. manner.)

For a wonderful social history of the Regency period in England by J.B. Priestley see Prince of Pleasure by J.B. Priestley . This book not currently in print should be available at most libraries. Also there is in the B & N catalog another book with the same title on the same subject. I saw a copy briefly at the local store and it may follow the Priestley script This in print version by Davie Saul is Prince of Pleasure by David Saul

BaBi
December 14, 2001 - 08:41 am
I was shocked to learn that Jefferson was ready and willing to see the breakup the Union in support of his own views. I can't help wondering if he would have ever been elected President if that letter had become common knowledge. I am beginning to be very glad the man was raised to be a "gentleman", with all that implies for those days. Considering his great intellect and talents, and his total self-centeredness, I hate to think what he might have been capable of without that restraining and modifying influence.

I was also greatly bemused to read that the entire files of the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War, were transported to DC in eight packing crates! I tried to imagine what would be involved in moving such files today, and could not begin to guess.

Do you think JA wants a second term as President? He has been very unhappy with the whole thing and I think would be glad to be shed of the office. ..Babi

Harold Arnold
December 14, 2001 - 10:31 am
It is time for us to move on to Chapter 10!

There are two chapters covering the Adams Administration, Chapters 9 & 10. In Chapter 10 McC continues with his main theme begun in Chapter 9, JA's work toward the avoidance of war with France and its culmination in success. This statesmanlike handling of the crisis in opposition to his own party, must properly be counted as the great achievement of the JA Administration. But McC gives much less coverage in Chapter 10 to the continuing constitutional crisis over the President's use of the Sedition Act to suppress opposition newspaper. In chapter 10 there is only brief mention of the reaction in Republican states. Kentucky passed nullification legislation as did Virginia. These law purported to invalidate the Federal Sedition Act and to make them unenforceable within the State, a fact that was then de facto successful since the Supreme Court had yet to assert its power to void state legislation.

For the sake of discussion, I will be critical of McC in Chapter 10 over his great emphasis of the French War crisis in which JA was successful, and his reduced emphasis on JA's record regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts where JA's image was not so bright. Despite the fact that the French Directory's refusal to receive the American diplomatic mission, which was a gross insult, there was very little physical danger of a French Invasion of the U.S. The three thousand mile wide North Atlantic had already proved a deterrent to the British in the 1770's who already had a controlling position in their colonies and were yet unable to suppress the rebellion. The French navy though a substantial force was never the equal to the British. It is unlikely that the French Navy would have been able to take a beachhead and sustain an invasion of the U.S. even before the British fleet at the Battle of the Nile sunk significant French naval resources and effectively removed any small chance of invasion.

But the Adams record with respect to the French crisis was a success and today its avoidance of conflict is popular to modern readers. On the other hand JA's civil rights record with respect to the Alien and Sedition Acts was bad and hence emphasis there would not enhance JA in the modern reader's eye. So, did McC make his character, JA, look good to the modern reader by emphasizing the great success and de-emphasizing an important failure?

Each of us must answer this question for ourselves. What do you think?

TigerTom
December 14, 2001 - 11:35 am
Harold,



Perhaps Adams was good at Foreign Policy and lousy at Domestic Policy. Someting that seem to have become fairly common with our Presidents. Especiallky lately. Good at one and bad at the other. Depending, it could be any combination.



Tiger Tom

Harold Arnold
December 14, 2001 - 12:31 pm
Good point Tiger Tom. Adams had spent most of his time between 1778 and 1787 in Europe. Of course after he returned he did get 8 years of domestic issue make up as VP before becoming President

Louise H
December 14, 2001 - 02:02 pm
I'm not sure if JA would have wanted a second term, but its possible. He certainly didn't want the worship of the masses, but he did have definite ideas and he was concerned about the still very imminent danger that the original states would break up. He might have wanted to serve another term to do what he could to bind the states closer together.

Incidentaly, I was reading Ellis again today and he was talking about Washington and his attitute toward Negros (I am going to skip writing African Americans, as it takes too long). He was against slavery,but seemed to feel according to Ellis that the law forbidding trading in slaves which would go into effect in 1808 would eventually end slavery. In his last will and testament he freed some of his slaves, and set the will up in such a way that when his wife died, the remainder would be freed. He felt apparently he couldn't free them all as long as she was alive and needed the income from their labors.In his will he made provisions for selling off Mt Vermon, and from the sale of his lands, a portion of the money was to go to his former slaves and their descendants - he left money for two or three generations of slaves. Apparently he wished to provide for them until he was sure they could provide for themselves. TJ did not free the majority of his slaves, but as he died owing the equivalent, I think, of $100K, he probably felt he couldn't do that. He needed their labor.

Also he and TJ had widely different opinions about Negros. TJ apparently held a low view of their capabilities, but GW felt it was nurture and not nature, as Ellis said, and felt that after the end of slavery, thd qualities of diligence and responsibility would develop naturally. Louise

Jonathan
December 14, 2001 - 11:13 pm
Louise, about that second term...I seem to remember reading that JA never solicited a vote. He seems to have waited for a call to duty. But being a politician, he may well have not wanted a second term, but losing it to Jefferson must have hurt. I enjoyed your earlier post about smart put-downs, and graceful insults among political foes.

Harold, my built-in jury is still out on whether John Adams' civil rights record with respect to the A and S Acts was as bad as some have thought it to be. Using the Sedition Act to suppress opponents might even, imo, be seen, in historical perspective, as defending and strengthening the executive branch during his term in office, in those early years.

Such a free, stalwart independent as Adams surely wished the same spirit and substance for his countrymen, as well as for his country. He initiated neither Act, did he? If he made use of them, it must have been done with the approval of many. He enjoyed tremendous popularity we are told. That begs leadership. Could it be that he was unfairly tagged with an anti-civil rights label as he was wrongly tagged with the monarchist label? Given the climate of uncertainty, the fear of civil war, knowledge of the incendiary jacobin press in France (Abigail heard with sorrow that the grandmother, mother, and sister, of her friend Madame LaFayette had died in the Terror) sedition and subversion must have seemed ominous threats. On the plus side, the A and S Acts, and the furor over them would have helped to clear the air, so to speak, and served to enhance the importance of the First Amendment. IMO.

What strikes me most about the first dozen years, is the unsettled state of affairs. The factions, the local interests, the puzzling over where one's loyalties lay. John Adams, as president, was exercising executive powers in uncharted seas. With Talleyrand and the Directory being greedier than those Barbary Pirates!

And then there's Hamilton. Everyone suspects him of something nefarious. Even George Washington, who earlier had threatened to resign his commission as Commander-in-Chief, if he was not permitted to appoint Hamilton as his second-in-command, declares, 'the man is stark mad or I am.'

'That man would...become a Bonapart', says Abigail.

Jefferson is tormented by fears of a federal army under Hamilton, marching on Virginia.

And Adams' cabinet seemed to get their marching orders from Hamilton.

Is this a balanced history of the times, or is it created with a tendentious selection of materials that make Adams look good, in a way, even, at the expense of Thomas Jefferson? On the whole, I think that John Adams deserves a better break than he has gotten in the past. Mean epithets abound in this highly-charged atmosphere of young America, uttered, no doubt, in the heat of political contentions, all to be taken with a grain of salt. Except for John Marshall's considered opinion of John Adams...'a sensible, plain, candid, good tempered man.' I believe Adams' many years of public service bear that out. Of course there still that 'irritability' that Abigail talks of, and tried to help him with.

Jonathan

Louise H
December 15, 2001 - 08:10 am
JONATHAN, along with concern for civil rights, and fear of the rule of the mob, or the rule of a wealthy oligarchy, I think JA was just as afraid of a breakup of the states, as GW was - there was not a sense of all being Americans, all in the same country. I think a man was apt to say, -if he was asked about his origin, that he was a Virginian, or a Pennsylvanian, or whatever, more than he was apt to say that he was an American.

Along with this fear, JA was conservative, so I think that would lean him toward a strong central govt. with a tolerance for measures like the A&S acts, which under other conditions he might oppose. Louise

Harold Arnold
December 15, 2001 - 05:09 pm
We know of course that JA favored a strong executive. This was one of the key points that he made in his 1787 paper entitled, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States.” I think this is the source of the criticism of JA as a monarchist. He did favor an executive with substantial powers but that would be a far cry from a hereditary king.

Looking at his record as given by McC, I don’t see much on which to criticize JA as an abuser of executive power. He stoutly refused to ask the Congress to declare war. While this was the action of a strong executive under the Constitution, it was his decision to make, and he made the decision to negotiate. Others might have wished otherwise, but it was JA who was president. On the A & S Acts issue the Congress passed the Acts, JA as president signed it into law, and used it against political opponents. There is no abuse of power here; the Constitution clearly gave him the power to approve acts passed by the two houses of congress and to enforce such Acts when they became law, though I and others may criticize the result reflecting a personal preference for a freer, more libertarian society.

williewoody
December 16, 2001 - 07:24 am
HAROLD: I don't challenge your statement that the French Navy during Adams administration probably could not support an invasion of the States. It is interesting, however, that without the aid of the French navy during the Revolution, we might never have defeated the British, and who knows might this day be a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Harold Arnold
December 16, 2001 - 09:14 am
Williewoody, absolutey I agree that the French aid and particularly the French Naval support was a very key factor in the success of the revolution. French and European isssues kept England occupied and unable to exert its full might against the rebellion. An example of the importance of the French Navy is that its timely arrival, made the decisive victory at Yorktown possible.

I suspect that had War with France actually occurred, the British navy would have been somewhat of a shield just as the Nelson victory in the Battle of the Nile significantly reduced the French naval threat to the U.S. and greatly increased the prospect for a negotiated peace.

BaBi
December 16, 2001 - 10:36 am
I would note that tho' JA was not really worried about the possibility of France attacking the US, he did want a navy strong enough to stop them attacking American shipping, even in American ports. His major concern as regards France was to keep Congress from forcing a war with France, in an extremely pro-War climate.

As for McCullough's reporting on Jefferson, I think he has given credit where credit is due and shows clearly the man's outstanding gifts. The things that show Jefferson in a bad light are his own letters and his own actions. Hardly McC.'s doing. If earlier historian have chosen to overlook these things in order to make Jefferson look more noble than he was, then the fault lies there, surely. Neither does McC. conceal JA's faults, though I grant you he does not feel called upon to dwell upon them more than specific incidents require. Neither man has any pretensions to being saints. Nevertheless, the qualities I find in JA are, IMO, the more worthy. ...Babi

williewoody
December 16, 2001 - 04:12 pm
A while back we were asked to cast a vote for who we thought was the better indvidual JA or TJ. I don't recall if I voted or not, but I definitely would vote for John Adams. He is not perfect, as none of us humans are. But I like his down to earth New England character qualities. He seemed to be more of a man of the people ( the common man). Thomas Jefferson was too much of an aristocrat, which in certain respects seems odd. Present day politicians seem to hold him as the founder of the Democratic Party, which by any stretch of the immagination is not a party favoring an aristocracy. As a matter of fact, McCullough seems to indicate that JA was accused of being a political advocate of a king for the country and an aristocracy. Makes no sense to me.

In addition, TJ was a terrible spendthrift, which is why he was constantly in financial trouble. A good reason why he spoke with "Forked tongue" as the American Indian would say. He wrote that all men were created equal, and that slavery was wrong. Yet he could never afford to free his slaves, because of his financial problems.

Harold Arnold
December 16, 2001 - 05:25 pm
True TJ was very much the aristocrat by birth and lifestyle, Yet TJ and his "Republican" party seemed much more willing to grant the democratic franchise to all levels of society and to accept control by the popular majority of all the people (i.e., adult, white male people). Remember TJ’s comment in the 1790 to the effect that the country needed a popular revolution every 20 years. As has been pointed out there are many perplexing contradictions in the TJ legacy. It was the backwoods people and poor new immigrant people who were "Republicans. The more secure independents New England farmers were more likely to be Federalists who would consider the idea of a revolution ever 20 years irresponsible.

Here is a copy of my earlier post tracing the evolution of Jefferson’s, Republican Party into the Democratic Party in the time of Andrew Jackson.
……the Republicans of Jefferson’s day after a few years became the Democratic Party. That party today seems the true continuation of the party. The Federalist Party folded by 1812 and for a few elections in the 18-teens and 20’s all candidates could be described as factions of the Republicans. I did a quick Internet search and found that John Q was from one of these Republican factions and JA himself as a Mass elector cast an electoral vote for one of these Republican candidates. I think Andrew Jackson was the first to style his party by the single word “Democrat.”


In the l840’s and 50”s a new party was organized, the Whigs and was successful in a couple of presidential elections. The Republicans of course were first organize in 1856 on the anti slavery issue and succeeded in electing its candidate for President in 1860 and most of the elections until the 1930’s. I don’t think it proper to say the Republicans of today are a continuation of the Federalists though I suspect most reincarnated Federalists would find some of their platform planks attractive. Today both parties unashamedly proclaim the old messages of Jefferson, and yes Adams too, as their own.


“Here is the link that I used in formulating the conclusions given above: Presidential Elections

williewoody
December 17, 2001 - 08:12 am
The Party of TJ may have evolved over time into the Democratic Party, but I would point out that the Democratic philosophy of government has changed in many respects from what it was in TJ's time. While it may be true that TJ believed, as you say in popular government, he also believed that the States powers should be held above the central government. Whereas JA believed in a strong central government, as the only means of survival of the new nation.

I wonder how both JA and TJ would view some very important changes in the political scene today. Freedom to vote for all peoples , regardless of race, sex and origin of birth. Not only voting rights but all rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Of course times and ideas change over the long haul and the interpretation of our Constitution, which both JA and TJ played a roll in creating, has changed. This I believe is why our republican form of government has survived. A strong Central government with checks and balances. In this sense JA's ideals have survived.

Harold Arnold
December 17, 2001 - 10:29 am
Williewoody in the preceding post has pointed out the Democratic (Party) philosophy has changed in many respects from what it was in TJ’s time. How very true this is! This is the basis for my several assertions in previous posts that today both of our present parties unashamedly claim succession from both TJ, and JA. Today the Democratic Party has combined its broad based popular democracy plank drawn from the TJ Republican tradition with JA’s concept of a strong Federal government. The Republican Party maybe less enthused with the popular electorate can still claim TJ as their own through their support for greater state and local control over many governmental functions

Today the American electorate stands perplexed between the two major parties gravitating from the Democrats to the Republicans when the inefficiencies of the gargantuan Federal bureaucracy become intolerable and back to the Democrats in support of new proposed Federal programs to address local Government’s inability to respond to new problems.

The thrust of the last several message relate to the question Ella has placed in the heading:
Looking at the U.S. government and our American society as it exists today, what features do you identify as attributable to John Adams? What is attributable to Thomas Jefferson? Does the thoughts of one or the other predominate?


How about the rest of you participants out there weighing in with your thoughts on these questions?

Ella Gibbons
December 17, 2001 - 02:54 pm
I'm back from a lovely week in Quebec - your country, JONATHAN! On our return voyage we had to fly from Quebec, to Boston, to Detroit and then Columbus, Ohio where I live. And the security! National Guardsmen, some with big rifles - YES, YES! I've never seen anything like it before. No one was objecting to body searches though (a first for me) - and they were randomly checking before and after deplaning - long after you had gone through X-ray, suitcases opened and searched in front of your eyes (even the dirty laundry we were bringing home - MERCY!)

And you are now on Chapter 10! I'll change the heading right away, but I want to say to …

ELLEN MCFADDEN, WELCOME! Particularly as you are a student of history and now have time to enjoy reading - all of us here love history and love to debate the merits of each of our founding fathers, particularly John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who had a love/hate relationship throughout their lives. We are now on Chapter 10 and I hope that your eyes hold out as you catch up with us!

I'm very interested in how you believe that John Adams' defense of British soldiers during those revolutionary days has relevance to our crisis today? To whom are you referring? Possibly John Walker, do I have his name correct? The young man who was fighting against America on the side of the Taliban. An interesting comparison if true.

Please stay with us and, if possible, could you read Chapter 10 now so that we can be on the "same page" so to speak?

I'm just skimming the posts here and have a couple of questions.

Several of you have mentioned that Thomas Jefferson was an "aristocrat." Why?

Of course, I know he was wealthy (or so he thought!), owned a big plantation, etc. Does - DID - that make one an aristocrat in history? I've always associated the word with Europe and its aristocracy.

What a fascinating conversation all of you have had in my absence, but I've got so much to do, so if you'll excuse me I must do laundry, cook and clean. One welcomes the routine of it all after being away -

Later…..ella

Louise H
December 17, 2001 - 05:32 pm
Just a few random thoughts.

ELLA, I think, and could be wrong of course, that TJ was representative of the upper class of Virginia gentlemen. These men - and their families - were descended from the first settlers of Va.There were class distinctions among the various early Va. settlers. Some were indentured servants, some were men seeking a better life than the ones they had in England, and some were the sons = second sons - of wealthy English aristocrats. These men were educated in the mode of upper class English and they brought those values, ways of life, etc. etc. with them. They were not able to inherit land in England, as they were "second sons" but with some financial help, when they came here they bought large tracts of land, and were able to construct a life for themselves similar to the lives of the landed gentry back home. They had large estates, with peasants who worked the land (the slaves) as they would have had at home. They built lavish luxurious homes, sent their children to England to be educated, bought much of their property, books, furniture, clothes (to some extend) musical instruments, etc. from English mercants, etc.

So they were a sort of variety of English aristocrats, without any specific title. But when a Virginia gentleman went along the streets of Williamsburg, for example, the small tradesman took off his hat respectfully, and the servant stepped out of his path, just as the peasant farmers would do for his older, titled brother, in England.

TJ came from this class - altho I don't know how much money he inherited - so I suppose you could call him a member of the American/ Virginia aristocracy. Read David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed" which details the origin of the 13 colonies. It is fascinating to see how the English second rank aristocrats succeeded in creating lives which were quite comparable in many ways to the lives they would have had in England, had they only been born "first sons." Louise

Jonathan
December 17, 2001 - 08:14 pm
Ella, welcome back. Although I must say I'm a little disappointed. After a week in Quebec...I was sure your post would be peppered with bon mots... But the lack of them is more than made up for by your saying that you had a lovely time. Getting back, judging by your description, was certainly less than half the fun.

What you said about the discussion, for Ellen's benefit, and a reminder for the rest of us, about it's being an opportunity 'to debate the merits of each of the founding fathers', is, imo, the largest part of McCullough's intent in his book... a more or less favorable condideration of the merits of John Adams. And really, in services rendered, leadership at critical stages, character, commitment to the public good as he saw it, and with, something of which he was very proud, no illegitemite off-spring, a rarity in parts of the country, he bears up very well under the strictest scrutiny.

Why then is there no monument to him somewhere on the Mall, between the splendid monuments to Jefferson and Washington? Nothing. Was it because he didn't look the part? As it was mentioned, at his inauguration, he just didn't have the imposing physical stature of the two Southern aristocrats on either side of him. Now, if the capital had been farther north...they do these things differently in New Hampshire, for example. In the Presidential Range, in the Whites, Mt Adams is, as it should be, the second highest mountain.

Louise, that is a most interesting answer to Ella's question, explaining the 'aristocrats' of the South. As for wondering about TJ's inheritance, I doubt if it was much more than his spending habits. And with nothing to lose but his debts, he could afford to be more democratic than his on-again, off-again friend, John Adams.

Jonathan

Harold Arnold
December 17, 2001 - 08:28 pm
Welcome Home Ella!

Ella, I've always considered the 18th/19th century southern planter class the very equivalent of the English aristocracy. They were the American version.

TJ in particular fits the pattern perfectly. He inherited wealth and position in which he did not have to work to obtain substance for his family (albeit in TJ's case he perhaps jacked his life style up a notch or two through credit). This life style left him free to devote his time to study, fun, and politics. Sans the title common in Europe, he and others like him principally in the South fit the pattern of the English aristocratic class.

Do we have an aristocracy today in the USA? The answer most certainly is yes. They are the several million, who through inheritance early success, and good luck (i.e. the lottery) etc can do as TJ did, study, fun and politcs

Louise H
December 18, 2001 - 08:36 am
You are so right about an American aristocracy, Harold. And they live lives that the rest of us can't even imagine, in so many ways that are foreign to us. They are a society unto themselves.

But I don't resent them quite as much as I would resent a European aristocratic class. For one thing, in this country, money is the key to gettting into this class. And I have a certain amount of respect for a man who gets ahead in business, and becomes part of this class. Mind you, it is only a limited respect because "getting ahead" probably involved actions that to most of us would be morally reprehensible. Louise

Ella Gibbons
December 18, 2001 - 09:45 am
THANKS EVER SO MUCH FOR YOUR DESCRIPTIONS OF AN ARISTOCRAT! I've never known one, tis true - one that doesn't have to work for a living! Have many of you met this kind of animal in your lifetime? Are they bored at times with nothing to do but play?

JONATHAN, I could regale you with tales of Quebec, tours through the city, the country, Parliament, even a dinner theatre featuring Les Follies de Paris! Fun, fun, fun, and, yes, I did learn many more words of French, but I don't know how to spell them! When you attempt to speak French people are so friendly and helpful and we end up laughing together! Never did we meet an anti-English person or one who did not greet us with the respect and courtesy (of course, tourism is one of their biggest products so they should put on their "friendly face") And the history of Quebec is fascinating, the British scaling the cliffs of the city in the dead of night --- etc. And, pertinent to this discussion, the Americans attempted to take the city during the period of the Revolutionary War but were repelled by the British.

I'm with you, JONATHAN - I would like to read a good biography of Alexander Hamilton, let's find one!!!

It came as somewhat of a surprise when I read of JA's affirmation that America needed strong defensive measures while desirous of peace, a statement we have all heard repeatedly by the military and the president since WWII when we were caught without any defense whatsoever. And in our lifetime so many wars since then - the Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf wars and now this - what will historians make of a war that felled over 6000 people in a matter of a couple of hours? What will it be called?

And I'm wondering more and more as I read this book, what in the world Vice Presidents do? What a boring job it was for Adams and Jefferson both - at least Jefferson found something to do in the office that would stand the test of time - his Senate Manual is considered, apparently, one of his lasting contributions to the country, something I had never known did any of you; one distinguished by clarity with an emphasis on decorum.

later....eg

BaBi
December 18, 2001 - 04:04 pm
Other than presiding over the Senate, making some goodwill calls on allies, and doing odd bits for the President, I don't know that you could say the Vice-President has a job so much as a position. A back-up position. It's necessary - like back-up tapes of your computer programs in case the computer crashes - but you hope it won't be needed!

There is a really funny book about Vice-Presidents by Richard Curtis nd Maggie Wells, called "Not Exactly A Crime: Our Vice Presidents from Adams to Agnew". The cover shows this large, rather massive, upright armchair, and over it one of those cartoon speech bubbles with an ! over it. Beside it is a small wooden folding chair with a ? over it. There is quite a bit of interesting history mixed in with the tongue-in-cheek commentary.

I do think our Presidents have learned the importance of keeping the vice-presidents informed. We have had some shaky times in the past when a new man had to take over, and hadn't the least idea what was going on. ...Babi

Harold Arnold
December 18, 2001 - 08:58 pm
Louise H. I will add a paragraph in mild defense of the British aristocracy. Despite the life tenure with right of succession in the next generation, the group did have a way of turning over rather rapidly. Early on the most prominent lords has a way of getting involved in rebellions and other antiestablishment activity (Our JA and TJ were not the first) and ending up with a very short haircut, yes just above the shoulders. Later spendthrift habits (a la TJ) led many to bankruptcy and a bankrupt lord was not much of an aristocrat. Finally in England there was always an influx of new blood by the annual creation of new peers and in the 19th and 20th centuries these most often came from the rising powerful industrial class, career army and navy officers (Remember Monty and most other WW II British generals and admirals), and even scientists, writers and maybe even a college professors or two.

Ella I agree, JA could have himself spoke much of the George Bush defense build-up rhetoric (after making allowance for technology changes). We are today most certainly much better off than we were in 1940 when we scarcely had any defense except the one ocean Navy that was in the Pacific. I am reminded of a May, 1940 news dispatch after the British were forced to abandon the defense of Norway. The News report told of the retreating British being forced to abandon some 400 ant-tank guns when they left. The article pointed out those 400 anti-tank guns were more than the entire US army had.

And the Vice Presidency is no place for an ambitious active politician with a future even today when the recents veeps have been given more significant assignments with the executive office. Until rather recently, it was the symbolic presiding over the Senate and maybe attending a state funeral or two. Also they do these day seem at least to get consideration for the office of President.. Mondale, Bush (senior), Gore. Poor JA as the first VP, didn’t realize how little power he had in the Senate. He actually tried to lead and participate in the debates.

Harold Arnold
December 18, 2001 - 09:08 pm
Louise H. I will add a paragraph in mild defense of the British aristocracy. Despite the life tenure with right of succession in the next generation, the group did have a way of turning over rather rapidly. Early on the most prominent lords has a way of getting involved in rebellions and other antiestablishment activity (Our JA and TJ were not the first) and ending up with a very short haircut, yes just above the shoulders. Later spendthrift habits (a la TJ) led many to bankruptcy, and a bankrupt lord was not much of an aristocrat. Finally in England there was always an influx of new blood by the annual creation of new peers and in the 19th and 20th centuries these most often came from the rising powerful industrial class, career army and navy officers (Remember Monty and most other WW II British generals and admirals), and even scientists, writers and maybe even a college professors or two.

Ella I agree, JA could have himself spoke much of the George Bush defense build-up rhetoric (after making allowance for technology changes). We are today most certainly much better off than we were in 1940 when we scarcely had any defense except the one ocean Navy that was in the Pacific. I am reminded of a May, 1940 news dispatch (this one I'll never forget)after the British were forced to abandon the defense of Norway. The News report told of the retreating British being forced to abandon some 400 ant-tank guns when they left. The article pointed out those 400 anti-tank guns were more than the entire US army had.

And the Vice President is no place for an ambitious active politician with a future even today when the recents veeps have been given more significant assignments within the President's office. Until rather recently, it was the symbolic presiding over the Senate and maybe attending a state funeral or two. Also they do these day seem at least to get consideration for the office of President, Mondale, Bush (senior), Gore. Poor JA as the first VP, he didn’t realize how little power he had in the Senate. He actually tried to lead and participate in the debates.

Ella Gibbons
December 19, 2001 - 08:25 am
Hi BABI - a backup position - that's a good description of the office of our VP's. And that book sounds like one we might all enjoy! I'll look it up in the Library.

One of you questioned whether JA wanted a second term and considering his words in a letter to Abigail - "I am old, old, very old and never shall be very well-certainly while in this office for the drudgery of it is too much for my years and strength" - he found the office of the presidency boring also!

And Abigail stated in a letter, after the election, that - "My residence in this city has not served to endear the world to me…." Their home in Quincy, according to McCullough, was the only place where both were truly happy and probably in many ways they were relieved that JA did not win reelection, or am I in error?

What are your thoughts?

Am off to finish Christmas shopping I hope! A sweater here, a bit of perfume there, possibly gift certificates? The easy way, the lazy way, what does one do???

Ella Gibbons
December 19, 2001 - 05:14 pm
What momentous events in this chapter - George Washington dying, the man immortalized in so many ways - "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen" - and about the same time the first presidential home being built in what later came to be called Washington, D.C. in his honor.

As to dirty politics, I've been so inundated with invective politics over the years that the diatribe in the papers and elsewhere in the election of the presidency at the turn of the century did not disturb or surprise me. Politics is politics is politics - forever, what has changed in this century is the fact that the candidates themselves take such an active part. Did you notice that through it all JA and TJ "conveyed the customary air of indifference, neither saying anything puclicly or appearing to lift a finger in his own behalf?

How alike these two men are in so many ways as McCullough keeps reminding us - ambitious politicians, determined, honest, loyal to principles of independence, willing to serve the nation they had created out of a few states, loving their homes and the land; however, doesn't it strike you that JA's temper or behaviour is at times outrageous? Once when an old friend came to call, JA sat reading a newspaper the entire visit. (527)

HEY GUYS! WHAT SAY YOU ALL TO FINISHING UP THE BOOK THIS WEEK?

ALL IN FAVOR - TYPE AYE


Harold and I are perfectly willing to stay as long as you want to, but it's a busy time for all and I think interest is lagging here. So type in either AYE or NAY.

Let us know what you desire.

Harold Arnold
December 19, 2001 - 08:11 pm
I'll be taking off for Xmas Sunday morning. I'll be back Wednesday evening. We have covered a lots of ground but still have an important final two chapters. I don't think we can do justice to the conclusion in the few days left before Xmas, since I suspect that most,like me have a lot of odds and ends to get ready. I therefor suggest that we conclude Chapter 10 and then like our National Congress take a 10 day recess to come back Jan 2 to conclude the ending chapters. We could then conclude at a leisurly pace in a week to 10 days.

Just a thought and if you are ready to conclude, that is ok with me. I've enjoyed this book and the discussion. Every one of you should feel proud of your contributions.

Also all of you are particularly invited to join me and Tiger Tom in our Mutiny "On the Bounty, You be the Judge" discussion. This will be an unique discussion in as much as there will be no single book. Instead we will explore all aspect of the afair from reading of the incividual's choice, from the history books, novels, movies, and Web and other resources. We will ponder the question, did Captain Bligh deserve the harsh judgement, 20th century novelists and movie makets have cast upon him? Go to <Mutiny On The Bounty, You Be the Judge for bibliography and other information. This is scheduled to begin Feb 2nd.

Jonathan
December 19, 2001 - 10:34 pm
Whether or not John Adams wanted a second term must have given Abigail much to think about. No doubt she would have been willing, for his sake, to endure four more years in a world made undearing by politics. With the wonderful life down on the farm as a constant refrain in the thoughts of both of them, no doubt every reader is justified in thinking that after one term John had earned his rest. And what a term! Has there been another like it in the history of the presidency? Add to that the feeling: 'I am old, very old', and one wonders if JA would have survived a second term. Come to think of it, haven't we heard that before? Didn't he feel that his working life was over when he returned from Europe in 1788? And ten or twelve years before that? But didn't we all feel older at forty, than we do now?

Curtis and Wells' book Not Exactly a Crime really is a funny book about VP's, as BaBi says. Lots of interesting history, like for instance, two VP's whose surnames came with Richard M. More seriously, with tongue in cheek, is the interesting idea that Abigail's hanging the wash in the East Room cost her husband that second term as president. The fact of the matter is that only if one dropped in unexpectedly would a guest have seen that. Better out of sight than in the Rose Garden, eh?

A bit of reading between the humorous lines elicits some serious truths. The book faults JA for not having made something of the office. 'In This, I am Nothing' does sound strange coming from a lawyer who won an acquittal for the British officer and men following the Boston Massacre. 'Reviled by his countrymen', he nevertheless persuaded a landslide number of Massachusetts voters to elect him to the House of Representatives the very next year.

IMO, it would have been reasonable to expect, the Constitution notwithstanding, that JA might have done more than 'Nothing' with the political opportunity within his grasp. Not necessarily with presiding in the Senate, where he made a mess of it with wanting his advice to be part of the deliberations, but tie-breaking, and he did it a record-breaking number of times, should have given him leverage somewhere. Granted that he misjudged the mood of the country with his hang-up over forms of address, he should have been able with his advocacy skills to explain convincingly to the young nation what he was after when he plugged for a special place for 'the rich, the well-born and the able'... encouraging his countrymen, as well as his children, to excel, to succeed, to 'make-something-of-yourself, to seek fame in an honorable way, respectability. No dumbing-down for John Adams. That's a bit gratuitous, I know.

But as Curtis and Wells suggest, between the lines, his place in history might have been different, if only he hadn't delegated the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The effort expended to make it the wish of his countrymen was mostly his, as Jefferson himself admitted.

This is a most interesting book. There are 38 other VP's considered, Spiro Agnew being the last, since it was published in 1972. The description of his vice-presidency consists of only six words: 'Spiro Agnew is a household word', which come with a 250+ word footnote!

Thanks, Everybody, for a great Discussion! Au Revoir! A bientot, svp.

Jonathan

Ella Gibbons
December 20, 2001 - 08:55 am
AU REVOIR JONATHAN! It's been great fun and I hope we meet again soon in another discussion! Before you leave I must contradict your statement - "But didn't we all feel older at forty, than we do now?" I was too busy at 40 to contemplate age! However, even now, I don't feel old at 73, possibly at 93 I might?

One more comment that I thought about in Chapter 11.

ELEVEN LONG YEARS these two former friends were to be silent, one with another, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

McCullough speculates that:
"Complaining was not the Adamses mode. The adjustments were more difficult than they would concede. The humiliation that defeat and popular rejection had inflicted on them, the death of Charles, and now sudden, total seclusion took a heavy toll. In some circles, they knew, they were openly despised. In others they were now considered irrelevant. Worst perhaps was the sense that no one any loger cared about them one way or the other."


In view of other statements made by both JA and Abigail I wondered if this could be true and so I looked in the Source Notes (on page 694) for this chapter. There were no sources for the statements concerning humiliation, total seclusion, heavy toll, despised by all, irrelevant.

What are we, the readers, to make of this? No references to this attitude in all the books in the Bibliography - where, where, where? Perhaps we can take it for granted that this reputable author would not pull bubbles out of thin air and print them as facts; however, I do believe we should question - always question.

Particularly when on pg. 571 Abigail writes that JA is enjoying freedom from care and is occupied fully with the farm and his books - he certainly sounds like a contented man, bringing in a good crop, working with men he had known for years and loving the exercise and pure air of his farm.

Any other AYES OR NAYS????

BaBi
December 20, 2001 - 03:29 pm
A quick comment on Abigail's tart and somewhat surprising statement that the "lower class of whites" were a grade below the Negro slaves in point of intelligence, and 10 grades below in point of civility. Surely Abigail must have been aware that civility was hardly an option with the slaves. Incivility could have cost them the skin off their backs, if not their lives.

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know what happend to Mr. Royal, the man Nappy didn't marry? In view of the unhappy outcome of her marriage to Col. Smith, I couldn't help wondering.

Lastly, I was startled at first to learn that 3/5 of the slave population was counted in the Southern states, in determining the number of representives they could send to Congress. Then, of course, I realized with their rural, agricultural population, they would have been greatly outnumbered by the urban Northern states without some such accommodation. ...Babi

Louise H
December 20, 2001 - 04:57 pm
ELLA, I think JA's reaction to enforced retirement was very typical and very human. He probably was bitter, and at loose ends. It must have been difficult for him to return to his farm, in view of the exciting life he had had both in this country and abroad.

But I think when he gradually grew accustomed to the quiet life on the farm, he grew content. It was, after all, the life he had known as a child and young man. It was his home and it was natural to him to live there. Perhaps he then turned inward, in a way, enjoying the simple pleasures that he might have almost forgotten in his former life.

As for Abigail, I think its possible she didn't have much first hand knowledge of what the life of a slave was like. She knew it in theory, but not from actual contact - I don't remember if JA's family ever had slaves, but if they did, they apparently gave them their freedom, and of course as the years passed, slavery became more and more repugnant to New Englanders, in particular. They didn't have slaves, and were not really aware, I think of the economic factors involved, and of the many problems which would result from emancipation. So Abigail spoke without thinking through what the life of a slave might be like.

Years ago, like 40 yrs. ago, I visited Monticello. At that time, there were two wings that came out from the main house, and the guide told us that these wings, which were partly underground, contained such things as smoke houses, a spring house, and various areas for maintenance. Also, at one end, were quarters for slaves, probably the household slaves, altho I don't know. This was a side of the lives of slaves that many people had never seen - to live in what was not much more than a hole in the ground. This explanation may not be given anymore - perhaps there is a more recent interpretation of their purpose, but that's what I was told a long time ago.

As for feeling older at 40 than now, I don't think I felt older. I had so many problems at that time- mostly of my own making, - I didn't focus much on age. Today I feel "older" than I was at 40 or 50, etc. but I don't really feel "old" --just "older" if that makes any sense. The only time I feel my age is when the arthritis acts up, or my memory disappears when I am trying to remember something simple. Louise

Jonathan
December 20, 2001 - 08:32 pm
With so many serious issues being raised, so many questions and doubts...we must continue with our discussion,-

BaBi, here's something I found in the Page Smith biography of John Adams:

'It was one of the many ironies of life that the half-demented Royall Tyler, from whom Nabby had so narrowly escaped, had gone on to become a famous playwright, the author of the first important American drama, The Contrast, and later the popular and respected Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Vermont, while his successful rival had turned out a failure and a wastrel.'

Louise, your posts never fail to inform and give pleasure. Did you manage to get through the snow, to the bus stop today? I'm making a careful note of what you were told at Monticello so many years ago. In a month or two I'm going to take a drive down there, I've always wanted to see the Jefferson place. I'll hear what the guide has to say now, and then...I'll keep you posted.

A Happy Holiday Season to all of you.

Jonathan

Harold Arnold
December 20, 2001 - 09:30 pm
Ella, I seem to recall from our book that Abigail actually inherited a female slave from her father. This does illustrate how widespread the instruction was. In this case it was in Massatuches and the owner was a clergyman. Abigail did free her.

I have already sounded off with my view of JA’s desire for a 2nd term. I really feel he dearly wanted his other term. It was his style to project a unconcern attitude, but he really wanted it. and was bitterly disappointed when it was denied him. Why else would he avoid participating in the Inauguration of TJ?

In recent times Jimmie Carter, and George Bush, Sr have lost their second bid and managed to stay for the winner’s inauguration.

Jonathan, when you return from Virginia this discussion will long be tucked away in the archives. However, archived discussions are still open for new posts. Perhaps you might post your impressions of Monticello here when you return.

Ella Gibbons
December 21, 2001 - 08:27 am
Harold, I seem to remember that JA had some good reasons for not attending the inauguration of TJ - one was the stage for Baltimore left at 4 a.m. and furthermore, he may not have been invited to attend!

In my morning paper I read an article which reminded me of Jefferson's concerns regarding a strong central government. A proposal for an I.D. for each citizen of the USA has some concerned groups anxious claiming that this would be a violation of a person's freedom to come and go as he pleases. Every day each of us would pass through a portal in some way notifying the government of what each of us is doing; nevertheless I believe I read it is in the works for each member of the military.

This concern for big government could be attributed to Jefferson perhaps and a partial answer to Harold's question in the heading.

Glad to have you back, JONATHAN, and let us continue on with the last two chapters of the book as we have the time.

Louise H
December 21, 2001 - 08:53 am
HAROLD, I think you're right, JA was disappointed he did not win a second term. But as you said, he left early because the stage had to leave very early and perhaps he wasn't invited to stay for the inauguration. Also, I think he felt perhaps it was inappropriate for him to "hang around" when the new man was being sworn in. At any rate, after a while I believe he got over it, and was content with the life he led back on the farm.

ELLA, I know what you mean about big govt. A proposal for an i.d. for every citizen has me on the fence. I guess basically I wouldn't be in favor of it. But I would be very much in favor of tightening up our procedures for foreigners to come here. I think there should be i.d. issued to them, which they would be required to produce under certain circumstances. Assuming the immigrant settles in one place, gets a job, and becomes a citizen, then the i.d. could be dispensed with. It is only for immigrants who are coming here for a limited time, and purpose, that should be watched - but not harrassed, just watched. I don't like this, but we now see what results from our practice of waving each immigrant in, with (figuratively) a hello and a casual wave. That has to stop. Louise.

Harold Arnold
December 21, 2001 - 10:02 am
During the 1940’s and 50’s the concern for a National Identity card was a major one. Shades of the movies with the German Gestapo dialog, “LET ME SEE YOU PAPERS!” In fact as I remember it, there was express provisions in the Social Security Act that the SS number would be private and would not be used for other than SS purposes. It was the 1970’s before the credit companies begin to use it. Obviously, in today’s environment I suspect the American people are ready to accept the restrictions and loss of freedom implied in the use and reliance on such identity proof.

The concern of the American people over the strong central government stems from the well-known and well-documented inefficiencies of governments in the U.S., Europe, and particularly in the USSR during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. In the 1980’s Ronald Regan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. succeeded temporarily in reversing the trend. Reform administrations under George Bush, Sr, and Bill Clinton in the U.S. and Tony Blair in the U.K. seemed generally sympatric to the trend to downsize government. The events of 9/11 must be viewed as a great setback suggesting the reality that the 9/11 terrorists may have succeeded in changing our future freedom to a far greater extent than we realize. The result may well be a National identity card and requirements that it be carried by all for on demand inspection by police.

My conclusions regarding our JA after the reading of the McC biography, Ellis’s, “Founding Fathers, and the current TJ biography,” Understanding Thomas Jefferson,” plus other web biographical material on Hamilton, Franklin, and Burr, is that JA does deserve greater recognition as a Founding Father than has been accorded him. There should in fact be a JA monument in a prominent place on the National mall.

My judgment of JA career is summarized as follows. First after a shaky start in France, I think his later role in the negotiating of the Peace Treaty with England, the Dutch loans, and his service, as the first American Minister to England were quite successful. Again he had a questionable eight years as Vice President principally because of the fact that the duties of the VP under the Constitution gave the office very little responsibility and JA attempted to assume too much. Also his persistent support of measures designed to bestow regal character on the President were generally unpopular particularly to backwoods Representatives in the House. His strong support of the measure must be considered a mistake lessening his popularity. Once President JA showed his integrity, intellectual honesty and independence by opposing War with France despite the fact War was the overwhelming choice of his own party.

Perhaps the greatest of all long-term JA contributions are in the Constitution of the U.S. Despite the fact that JA was in Europe and had no direct role in its writing or ratification, he succeeded in casting the new Government in his pattern. This was through his 1787 paper,” A Defenses of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States of America.” The Construction, as it was written, showed the unmistakable JA signature outlined in this paper. TJ too was in Europe when the Constitution was written. The delegates writing the Constitution had no similar document expressing the TJ’s views. the result is that our Government today with its amendments and its many Court interpretations, is for good or bad, very much in the JA pattern.

BaBi
December 21, 2001 - 10:40 am
Jonathan, thanks for the information about Royall Tyler. I thought I had read somewhere in the book that he became a playwright, but that was all. A pity things turned out as they did; Nabby was such a likeable, strong woman.

John Quincy Adams turned up on one of the questions on Jeopardy yesterday. They questions concerned someone who was "president of Harvard before becoming President (of the U.S.)". There was a picture of the man, but he was older there than in the portraits in the book. I didn't recognize him, and was embarassed to find I hadn't picked up on the Harvard president clue, after reading this book. Louise and I have that in common, ie., my memory frequently deserts me when I need it. Reminds me of my poky computer. I put in a request for a piece of information I need, then wait...and stew...and get aggravated ...waiting for my brain to retrieve what I asked for! ..Babi

Ella Gibbons
December 21, 2001 - 04:23 pm
BABI - I would have missed that one also, where in our book does it tell about JQuincy being president of Harvard? You have lots of company in the poor memory department. I'll look it up in the index to find out.

And poor Nabby being operated on with no anesthesia? Impossible to even think about that, I hope they got her drunk before they started with the knife but being religious types they probably didn't!

What a good fellow, as well as a good physician for the times, was Benjamin West, who finally brought the old antagonists together. Do you believe he really had that dream of the future (600) or was it an excuse to revive the friendship that was once between JA and TJ?

Thanks for all your posts, so enjoyable to read them and I'm glad we are continuing the book (gives me something to think about in the midst of all the preparations for Christmas).

Harold Arnold
December 21, 2001 - 08:25 pm
Ella, don't you think they used opium is some form for an operation such as Nabby's. Its not an anesthetic but it would knock out the patient. Surely no woman could have stood the literally carving involved without something. For Nabby the operation came about 150 years too soon for there to be much chance of successes

Ella Gibbons
December 22, 2001 - 08:43 am
Opium? They had that? Where would a physician have gotten it from? Is that the same thing as laudanum, which I've read about in other books? Why didn't McCullough tell us, certainly in all those sources he came across a reference to some kind of anethesia.

Fun to read about the two and their correspondence, both of them true to their nature in their letters. Adams asked "Who shall write the history of the American Revolution - Who can write it - Who will ever be able to write it?"

Adams attempting to draw Jefferson into a debate of the issues of their times and Jefferson refusing to engage in that kind of dispute; he wanted only tranquility of mind and ease of body.

I rather like that myself, Mr. Jefferson, in this particular time of my life.

Harold Arnold
December 22, 2001 - 09:30 am
Ella, my Merriam-Webster on line dictionary defines "laudanum" as follows: Main Entry: lau·da·num Pronunciation: 'lod-n&m, 'lo-d&n-&m Function: noun Etymology: New Latin Date: circa 1603 1 : any of various formerly used preparations of opium 2 : a tincture of opium

I think opium has been around for a long time. Perhaps Western Europe and the Americas got it from trade with Turkey or the Balkan countries, but I suspect the opium poppy can be (and was) grown in much of Europe and North America.

BaBi
December 22, 2001 - 01:09 pm
Ella, opium has been in use for 6000 years in the Middle East. It was used by Greek and Roman physicians, and was certainly around in the 18th century. You would think McCullough would have mentioned it if it had been used, but I agree with Harold that Nabby could hardly have survived the surgery without some form of pain control. Thank God we live in the days of anesthesia! ..Babi

Ella Gibbons
December 22, 2001 - 02:46 pm
Hi HAROLD AND BABI!

What would opium be called today - is it a street drug such as cocaine or hashish? I know it isn't marijuana, as some years ago our very young neighbors had 2-3 plants of that in among evergreens in their backyard and another neighbor (leave it to sharp and nosy neighbors) on the other side of them warned the young folks he knew and he told us and, of course, I had to go see what they looked like - in person (although I had seen pictures). The plants have been long gone and the young couple are respected citizens of our community.

Remember Ann telling us that JA and Abigail both kept copies of their letters for posterity and I rather think that JA also kept copies of his correspondence with Jefferson and was hoping to advance his causes in the letters; however, Jefferson refused to play the game.

I had highlighted this paragraph as I thought it was pertinent to the country today -

"Why was it that a nation without wars to fight seemed to lose its honor and integrity? War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues, too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another."

Ella Gibbons
December 22, 2001 - 03:38 pm
Have no idea why I'm being so lazy and not looking up things myself these days - "cocaine is a colorless or white crystalline narcotic alkaloid ....extracted from coco leaves and used as a surface anesthetic" - Oh, YEAH?

Harold Arnold
December 22, 2001 - 08:34 pm
Merry Xmas to All! I'm leaving for North Texas tomorrow morning and will return Wednesday or Thursday. I probably will not check in tomorrow, but may be able to appear on Monday as I will have my laptop and Texas Net has a Dallas dial-up.. Have a great Xmas, one and all!

Louise H
December 23, 2001 - 07:53 am
You too, Harold. Have a great holiday, and we'll be waiting for your return. Louise

williewoody
December 24, 2001 - 08:43 am
As a parting thought. I find it very unusual and somewhat eerie that the second and third Presidents died on the 4th of July 1826. Both were signers of the Declaration of Independence. Further, James Monroe, the 5th President, also died on the 4th of July five years later. He was not a signer of the Declaration,but he was certainly involved in the Revolution. It would be interesting to know if there were any other signers who may have died on the 4th. Off hand does anyone know? If not I will try to research this on the internet.

Louise H
December 26, 2001 - 09:01 am
WillieWoody. I don't know if any others died on that day, but it would be interesting to find out. I doubt if many did, --it may have been the time frame ---in the late 1700s and early 1800s there may have been special medical situations, contagious diseases, that were common and took people off - perhaps due to some food of the period, something in nature, plants, etc. that caused illness. These illnesses may have developed in the winter months (flu type, etc.) and the patients lingered on until summer. Perhaps the causes of these illness changed after some years.

Then, on the other hand, I could be entirely wrong, and it may be just one of those weird coincidences that happen all the time. Louise

BaBi
December 26, 2001 - 02:07 pm
Ella, heroin is a derivative of opium, and here are "opiates" used in medicine, but I'm not sure which they are. The quote you cited for us is somewhat depressing, isn't it? But it has always been the pattern that in times of crisis people put aside their personal agendas to take care of whatever problem threatens all. A bit of survival wisdom, I suppose. That is why, I think,that I so much despise these popular new "survival" shows. They are all so cut-throat in their approach, with the 'survival' of #1 as all that matters. This is supposed to be "reality" programming, but the reality is that our survival depends on cooperation, mutual aid and support.

Williewoody, the people of the time were apparently very much struck also with the coincidence of Adams and Jefferson both dying on July 4th, within hours of each other. They seemed to find it significant and meaningful, which I can well understand. ...Babi

Louise H
December 26, 2001 - 02:11 pm
BABI, I think probably I despise these survival shows about as much as anybody can. That, and the everyman for himself which so much a part of our culture, turns me way, way off. Louise

Ella Gibbons
December 26, 2001 - 06:59 pm
We had a lovely holiday at our house, but OH! THE WEATHER OUTSIDE IS FRIGHTFUL - in the low 20's and my daughter took 4-5 hours to make the journey to her home which is usually an hour and a half. We were so worried, but she just called and there was a bad accident - it's spitting snow and the roads are icy. Goodness!

Did want to say hello to all of you and hope your holiday was a good one - I ate too much, too many cookies, but I knew I would and, of course, I must pay for it by doing more on the treadmill! LOUISE, ARE YOU LISTENING? haha Yes, yes, one half hour EVERY DAY!

This evening I looked over my highlighted sentences in the chapter entitled JOURNEY'S END and isn't it remarkable that JA at 85 was still riding horseback and walking three miles about town and on the farm. And at 73 I'm not doing the same, well - never did ride horses, I think they are frightening animals, much too big for me to control although I tried it a couple of times when I was young and you don't want to know the results!

But this from Cicero on growing old must be repeated here before we leave the book - I love the quote. I believe reading and discussing books on Seniornet has enabled your's truly to stay mentally young, particularly with people such as yourselves who love ideas, who love to debate the issues, and are so willing to share your viewpoints for which I am so grateful:

For as I like a young man in whom there is something of the old, so I like an old man in whom there is something of the young; and he who follows this maxim, in body will possibly be an old man but he will never be an old man in mind.

"The philosophy that with sufficient knowledge all could be explained held no appeal. All could not be explained, Adams had come to understand. Mystery was essential

AMEN!

babsNH
December 26, 2001 - 07:02 pm
I was fortunate last night to stumble across an interview of David McCullough on C-Span. It was a three hour interview and phone-in questioning. It took place in Washington? on 12-2-2001. I have only recently received C-Span and did not know about this regular program called Book TV. I shall watch for it from now on. It was all about his home on Martha's Vineyard, his family, his career, all of his books etc. Many call-in questions were about John Adams and I wish I could remember a tenth of what he said. Two things that stood out were his statements that when he started that project he thought to do a dual biography of Jefferson and Adams, but that soon after he started his research Adams just took over. He was asked about criticism that he was too hard on Jefferson, and he acknowledged that he had agreed with some of his critics and had cut back and cut out some of what he originally drafted. He said that most of what people criticized was public record and not his own words. It was very obvious however, that he genuinely regards John Adams as a great man. He stated, though, that none of them were perfect. He was asked who he thought was the "Greatest Generation" of US history, and he said he would have to say that these men, the Founding Fathers were. He said that he had to go to places that his subjects had been to before he could write about them. He talked about going to the shore in Quincy one cold winter day with his son, the same day the JA and JQA took a row boat to a frigate to leave for France. He said that he and his son were dressed in warm winter gear, and even then while watching the big rollers come in off the icy water, he could not even begin to imagine the discomfort of these people making that winter trip in the North Atlantic and how very brave they had to have been. I hope this show is repeated and that some of you may have seen it too. It was excellent.

Ella Gibbons
December 27, 2001 - 09:52 am
WELCOME BABSNH! Are you new to Seniornet and our book discussion? We have a BABI, so perhaps I am confused this cold, cold morning in Ohio, but I don't believe I've seen you posting before, have I? Oh, dear, do forgive me if I have!

You will love C-SPAN and the weekend book-tv. I don't watch it much except for Sunday nights when Brian Lamb interviews an author of non fiction. I like his interviews and have read a number of the books of these authors.

Thanks for your post! If you will look in the heading and click where it says LINKS TO JOHN AND ABIGAIL ADAMS, you will find interviews of David McCullough; the one by the NY TIMES is printed and you can read it if you don't want to listen to it.

Everything I read lately has reminded me of the founding fathers - this morning's paper had an op-ed titled "The United States has rediscovered itself." Until I read this I had no idea that Harvard had no ROTC - I just had never thought of it. Since the tumultuous years of Vietnam and all the protests during that period of history, Harvard has shown little patriotism. I quote:

"Open displays of patriotism have not been common at Harvard University for quite some time so when Harvard considers allowing the ROTC back on campus, it is a sign that something must be changing. ....... the belief in American exceptionalism, that the United States plays a special role in history because it embodies a unique set of ideas about individual liberty and equality, once came as naturally as breathing.

But over the past 40 years, the nation's faith in itself, its values and its destiny have been shaken.....As terrible as the attack (Sept. ll) was, it has helped Americans see themselves in a way they haven't in a generation or more. There really is comething special here. It's worth standing up for. It's worth fighting for. That's now apparent, even in places such as Harvard."

Louise H
December 27, 2001 - 02:13 pm
Oh Ella, you don't know what its like there. I worked at MIT, and went through the Harvard Yard every day for many, many years. I shopped there, and ate in Harvard Sq. I met many Harvard people in the performance of my job, I read their publications, saw their broadsides, etc.

The general attitude among many (how many, I don't know) students and many of the faculty was one of contempt for the ordinary citizen in this country, and for the country as a whole, being made up of "ordinary" people on the whole. The intellectual arrogance of the faculty and students is unbelievable. They -the faculty - consider themselves superior people, capable of understanding and solving problems that the public in general could not possibly cope with. It is more than just being liberal. They start with an assumption that any widespread belief held by the public, probably should be dismissed, as it is incorrect, just because of the fact that it is a belief which is widespread among the population - and since the population is so intellectually deficient, any values standards, etc. they have are not likely to have any substance.

And it isn't just Harvard. I think this is largely true of the "elite" universities. The fact that somebody/some people in Harvard are actually able to discuss ROTC without being attacked, verbally, and physically (if they publish a newspaper with views not held by the elite, their papers have been seized in the past whereever they are displayed, and would be destroyed, etc. -if they spoke in public they would be booed, and not allowed to speak) - the fact that they actually can discuss the possibility of having ROTC at the campus is enough to stun anybody who has been exposed to the Harvard mentality over the years.

There are undoubtedly many sensible, well balanced students there, but I think they soon learn it is best not to get into any rows with the radical element there. It is easier to try to ignore them, and get through without making any trouble for yourself.

I could go on for hours about the arrogance, snobbishness, radicalism, and basic anti-American attitude which has existed, no, flourished on the campus of Harvard and other universities for many, many years. Louise

Malryn (Mal)
December 27, 2001 - 07:29 pm
Boo, Louise!

Harvard is a wonderful school, as some of my relatives will attest. There isn't one college or university that doesn't have its snobs, you know, even MIT.

Do you include places like Wellesley and Smith in your Harvard category? If you do, I'll meet you out back of the barn with my dukes up, ha ha!

Thanks, Ella. I'll go quietly now.

Mal

Louise H
December 27, 2001 - 08:25 pm
Harvard and the elite colleges don't have the "classical" snobs - far from it. They were contemptuous of the rich - oppressors of the masses. Many of them actually came from comfortable, even well to do families. I remember one of the radical leaders was married to a daughter of the head of one of the biggest brokerage houses in N. Y. at that time. He probably hated his father in law.

They are intellectual snobs, convinced of their superiority over the majority of the public. MIT had a share of them but not as many as MIT has always drawn a different kind of student, the scientific nerd - the student who wants either to be the head of a great corporation eventually, making millions in salaries each year, or a world famous scientist and Nobel prize winner, held in awe by the population because of his brilliance. Politics generally isn't a priority with either type.

Much harm has been done to our country by these prominent graduates and faculty members who went on to become powers in educational institutions, foundations of various sorts, government agencies.

I learned the futility of talking with the standard Harvard radical many years ago, when I got into a "discussion" with one of the leaders of a sit in, who objected strenuously to what I was saying, and when I said I had the same right to free speech as he had, he said no, because I was WRONG, so I had no right to disseminate wrong views. He had the right opinion and since I didn't agree with him, I had no right to speak what I believed.

Louise

Harold Arnold
December 27, 2001 - 08:41 pm
Ella, Louise and all, I’m back from North Texas after a very enjoyable Xmas. Now I can hardly wait for another 5 or 6 days that will conclude this cycle of festivity and allow life to get back to some semblance of the normal.

On the Harvard question, I think I remember Harvard dropped the ROTC in reaction to the Viet Nam mess in the early 70’s. Ella, did not Ben Bradlee get his Naval commission through the Harvard Naval ROTC? I’ve only known one Harvard graduate whom I worked with for about five years during the 70’s. He had graduated about 1971. He was very liberal and I remember him showing his SDA (is that right) card. We shared an office doing economic studies relative to the use of energy in the future, particularly electric energy. My Harvard associate was very smart leading to my observation that working with him was akin to being a roomy with Isaac Newton. He was certainly no snob and on that question I must point out the senior netters not involved in the B & L frequently refer to us as snobs. I guess I’m not too surprised Harvard is bringing back the ROTC. After 9/11 many things are changing.

Ella Gibbons
December 28, 2001 - 02:57 pm
Hello to all of you!

Oh, it's so beautiful outside today, snowing, big flakes coming down, just as in a picture! And I am so glad there is no necessity for driving anywhere, although I make get my boots on and walk in it awhile.

I knew one Harvard fellow - one of the nicest persons I've ever met. He was my debate partner in high school and went on to a distingished academic career and was a professor at Harvard the last time I heard from him. No snob, no radical, just a quiet soft-spoken professor who was an acknowledged expert in Far Eastern affairs.

Suffice to say that at all institutions, all political parties, wherever a group meet in common there will be every type of person one can possibly envision.

I have turned the last page of JOHN ADAMS and have nothing further to say but a gentle goodnight to these two great founding fathers - Adams and Jefferson. We have looked at them through the eyes of David McCullough and found them to be worthy of praise for their courage, vision, and the part they played in what is glorious in our country, the United States of America.

Regardless of McCullough's claim that he only wrote a book about John Adams, the two are so entwined in history that I found it to be a book about both of these great men in every sense of the word and it added greatly to my knowledge.

MY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR POSTS AND YOUR ABILITY TO ADD MANY PLEASANT HOURS OF ENJOYMENT TO THIS DISCUSSION AND TO ME. I HOPE WE MEET AGAIN IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION!

We will keep this discussion open for all additional comments anyone cares to make.

Harold Arnold
December 30, 2001 - 09:33 am
In conclusion I will add the following final comments:

First, regarding the thread early in the week that I read in Dallas relative to the coincidental deaths of JA and TJ and possibly other signers of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, I do not know if others signers who also passed on that date. Earlier, either here or probably on the History Book Forum, I mentioned the experience of John James Audubon on July 4 1826. He was at sea in the North Atlantic on the Delos a sailing ship on his way to Liverpool from New Orleans. It had been a long very slow trip in which the Delos was in the doldrums in the Gulf for a full month. Audubon passed his time observing the crew, other ships, sea birds, and drinking Porter (apparently a form of beer with a high alcoholic content still sometimes available in the US). In his journal on that date Audubon describes a strange premonitions of the occurrence of some evil calamity back in his country, the U.S. Weeks later in Liverpool, he heard the news of the passing of the two Ex-Presidents on the same day. Of course he at once associated this event with his premonition at sea. The predomination of course quite likely was more due to the influence of the Porter than to physic powers.

Second, my thought on the historical importance of the post presidential correspondence of TJ and JA is that much is valuable source material concerning the history of the time. Nonetheless some is a self-serving effort to make them and their careers look good. The reader must be diligent in separating the two.

Thirdly, I learned much about John Adams and his career serving his country. While I am now aware of his many contributions and would have no problem seeing recognition of his service in the form of an appropriate memorial on the DC mall, I remain unreconstructed regarding my personal choice of TJ as the more prominent founding father. JA, successes in the Continental Congress, the negotiating of the Peace Treaty with England, and the avoidance of war with France must be balanced against his early failure as diplomat in France, his record as VP, and his signing and use of the Alien and Sedition Acts as President. In maintaining this position I realize that I must dismiss TJ sorry personal decisions. Also I am influenced by TJ decision as President to enter the Louisiana Purchase agreement with France that bought US control of the Mississippi valley and assured a future nation of continental magnitude.

Finally regarding the David McCullough book, I found it an enjoyable and generally well researched and well written book, but not without critical fault. I think the principal fault lies in the lack of detail and emphasis on the principal failures of JA particularly with respect to his role in the Alien and Sedition Acts and also his early insistence on changes in diplomatic strategy with France that could have jeopardized the previously signed French Aid Treaty. In contrast the author was quite generous with words devoted to JA’s successes leading to the resulting image of JA as a re-discovered Founding Father and perhaps the “best seller” status of the book.

Harold Arnold
December 30, 2001 - 09:59 am
Also here is a reminder that on February 2nd we will begin a discussion of the Bounty Mutiny affair. This is a unique experiment in which we will not be discussing a particular book, but rather a broader particular subject, a historical event. Participants will come to the discussion with different perspectives acquired not through a particular book, but through a variety of sources, history, and fiction books and movies. You will be asked to judge, did fiction grossly distort Captain Bligh’s record in its treatment of the historical event? You who have participated here in “John Adams” are invited to join the “Bounty” discussion!

Click the following for details: Mutiny On The Bounty- You Be The Judge

Also you are invited to participate in the History Book Forum. There we discuss history and History Books, old and new. Please join us there and if you should have further comment relative to JA after this discussion closes, it would be appropriate to post it there. History Book Forum

Harold Arnold
December 30, 2001 - 09:59 am
Also here is a reminder that on February 2nd we will begin a discussion of the Bounty Mutiny affair. This is a unique experiment in which we will not be discussing a particular book, but rather a broader particular subject, a historical event. Participants will come to the discussion with different perspectives acquired not through a particular book, but through a variety of sources, history, and fiction books and movies. You will be asked to judge, did fiction grossly distort Captain Bligh’s record in its treatment of the historical event? You who have participated here in “John Adams” are invited to join the “Bounty” discussion!

Click the following for details: Mutiny On The Bounty- You Be The Judge

Also you are invited to participate in the History Book Forum. There we discuss history and History Books, old and new. Please join us there and if you should have further comment relative to JA after this discussion closes, it would be appropriate to post it there. History Book Forum

Harold Arnold
December 30, 2001 - 10:00 am
Also here is a reminder that on February 2nd we will begin a discussion of the Bounty Mutiny affair. This is a unique experiment in which we will not be discussing a particular book, but rather a broader particular subject, a historical event. Participants will come to the discussion with different perspectives acquired not through a particular book, but through a variety of sources, history, and fiction books and movies. You will be asked to judge, did fiction grossly distort Captain Bligh’s record in its treatment of the historical event? You who have participated here in “John Adams” are invited to join the “Bounty” discussion!

Click the following for details: Mutiny On The Bounty- You Be The Judge

Also you are invited to participate in the History Book Forum. There we discuss history and History Books, old and new. Please join us there and if you should have further comment relative to JA after this discussion closes, it would be appropriate to post it there. History Book Forum

Louise H
December 30, 2001 - 11:45 am
One more comment. I think that JA felt that following the instructions of Congress strictly, as regards how he was to act in France would put us in the position of being passive dependents of France. JA didn't want this anymore than he wanted us to be "little brothers" - of the English. I think we were in great danger of being a football, to be used by both of these countries, when advantageous to do so, in their long going and continuing struggle for dominance.

So JA refused to submit his decisions, choices, etc. to the French diplomats for their approval, before officially advancing them. As I remember, GW was very concerned about this country being treated as a pawn by both of these countries. He is quoted as using the well known, and accurate phrase, "A country has no permanent friends, and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests". I wish all politicians had this always in front of them, in their dealings with other countries.

I remember another of Churchill's remarks. When Russia was invaded by Hitler and thus became an "ally" of England some politicians were alarmed and upset at having a man like Stalin as an ally, especially when Churchill spoke warmly of Stalin in Parliment. He answered them saying, "if the devil himself were to join on our side, I would be able to find a few kind words to say about him in Parliment". The pro-British and the pro=French supporters in this country I'm afraid often failed the litmus test of policy, "is this action beneficial to our country." Louise