The more things change, the more they stay the same. ( )

7 stars: Good

From the back cover: It was a contest of titans: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two heroes of the Revolutionary era, once intimate friends, now icy antagonists locked in a fierce battle for the future of the United States. The election of 1800 was a thunderous clash of a campaign that climaxed in a deadlock in
the Electoral College and led to a crisis in which the young republic teetered on the edge of collapse.

Adams vs. Jefferson is the gripping account of a turning point in American history, a dramatic struggle between two parties with profoundly different visions of how the nation should be governed. The Federalists, led by Adams, were conservatives who favored a strong central government. The
Republicans, led by Jefferson, were more egalitarian and believed that the Federalists had betrayed the Revolution of 1776 and were backsliding toward monarchy. The campaign itself was a barroom brawl every bit as ruthless as any modern contest, with mud-slinging, scare tactics, and backstabbing.
The low point came when Alexander Hamilton printed a devastating attack on Adams, the head of his own party, in "fifty-four pages of unremitting vilification." The stalemate in the Electoral College dragged on through dozens of ballots. Tensions ran so high that the Republicans threatened civil war
if the Federalists denied Jefferson the presidency. Finally a secret deal that changed a single vote gave Jefferson the White House. A devastated Adams left Washington before dawn on Inauguration Day, too embittered even to shake his rival's hand.

With magisterial command, Ferling brings to life both the outsize personalities and the hotly contested political questions at stake. He shows not just why this moment was a milestone in U.S. history, but how strongly the issues--and the passions--of 1800 resonate with our own time.

----------------------

I picked up this book a number of years ago at Monticello. Now, having watched the musical "Hamilton", I decided to pick it up. I liked it quite well. At roughly 200 pages, it gave me appreciation for the times and the politics, in ways that are difficult to understand now. First, much of the fighting between Jefferson / Madison and Adams / Hamilton was about states rights (Democratic Republicans aka Jefferson / Madison) and federal oversight (Federalists, aka Hamilton / Adams). I've heard about this debate over the years, but not until more recent times have I been so aware what it meant, as it spills out into many social issues discussions today. I also found quite interesting the details of life in that era, which simply aren't relevant today. Things like Jefferson wanting the capitol to be off the Potomoc so it would be near Monticello. Today, people commute from NY to DC on a daily / weekly basis. THere are hundreds of other similar details that were interesting to me.

Last, the author did not mention Sally Hemings and this controversy very much. However, what did, resonated with me. Jefferson had his heart broken twice, first with death of his wife, then with a lover who ultimately stayed with her husband. With Hemings, (who was educated), he may have found some semblance of love. But he also ensured that as a slave, she couldn't leave him, as his other two loves did. Yes, he freed her and her family - but not until his death. I find this as nuanced and complex as such an issue usually is, vs, apologists who like to say "He was in love with a black woman". Also, on that note - contemporary statements that she was very light skinned also bring much relevancy here.

Some parts I liked:

"Jefferson displayed many signs common to those who feel abandoned, perhaps the result of having lost his father, whom he revered, while only in his early teens and of never having established what he regarded as a warm, lovng relationship with his mother. Young Jefferson was self centered, reclusive, and unable to establish even the slightest relationship with any young woman... Consumed with despair, Jefferson described himself in this period as lonely and unhappy, and confessed that he longed for a family through which he might discover the domestic bliss that he had never known.

Jefferson wanted more than a carnal affair, but as he discovered, he was inacpable of ever again submitting to a deep, loving, intertwining relationship in which he fully gave himself to another. In the course of making that discovery, however, he reached a pivotal understanding of himself, and in so doing, came to terms with a crucial truth: while he could not live with another person, he now could live without his deceased wife. That knowledge freed him to get on with his life in a productive albeit emotionally austere manner.

Adams now came to suspect that Hamilton not only had been manipulating some of his cabinet secretaries but had exploited President Washington as well. "Washington was only a viceroy under Hamilton, and Hamilton was viceroy under the tories." The president was veering towards Jefferson's outlook. He too was beginning to believe that Hamilton harbored adventurous designs, and like the vice president, Adams took to referring to Hamilton privately as "Ceasar".

Jefferson thought Philadelphia a dreary place that winter, and not just because of the damp cold. Partisanship had decimated the "pleasures of society" he lamented, as invitations to galas hosted by those in high society had dried up for Republicans. The "high political passions" has usurped old friendships and ruined the possibility of amicable ties with those who differed politically." [How this reminds me of current times...]

More than any other single public figure, Jefferson deserved credit for the social and politcal reforms that had been achieved by 1826. ... He was among the first to divine the reactionary threat posed by the extreme conservatives in the early days of the new Republic, and he was the first major official to take steps to organize an opposition to the peril. ... he may have been the first to grasp the menace to republican governance that was posed by great wealth. ( )

Very detailed book on the all-important, first truly contested election in our history. A vast majority of the book takes us through the years and months leading up to 1800, most of which was quite interesting. The chapter that focused exclusively on the election itself, however, was pretty heavy with the names of various electors, their votes, the backdoor dealings, etc. While important, it was weighty reading. This is compounded by author John Ferling's academic writing as he often uses vocabulary that seems intended to impress folks of his skills with a thesaurus.

While I enjoyed the book well enough, I'm sure there's a title out there covering the same subject that's written in a less dry, academic tone. ( )

Anyone who believes we are in a period of unprecedented partisanship should read this book. I have always found history to be calming because it's obvious humans have changed little and the issues and enmities repeatedly appear with only minor adulteration. The issue of whether we should have more or less government that we argue about today was a battle royale among the Founders. Adams, Hamilton, and Washington, all having seen the powerlessness and inefficiency of the colonies acting independently in the fight against the King, and then in the Articles of Confederation, America's first Constitution, wanted a stronger, national government that could better defend against outside interests. Jefferson and Madison, romantics both, believed less government was always better. Sound familiar?

The seeds of that dispute lay with disagreements much earlier. Spain was willing to make considerable concessions regarding land if ownership of west Florida and New Orleans could be decided and traffic on the Mississippi ceased. Southern states were furious, while northern ones didn't care and the issue was never resolved, but a failure to have a national policy rankled. Couple that with the inability to get colonies to pay their share to support the troops, who were starving at Valley Forge while monarchists partied in Philadelphia, and you had more impetus for a stronger, more national government. That resulted in the 2nd Constitution of 1789 unfortunately delivering more land mines (the 3/5ths clause and support for slavery) leading to the Civil War. The battles between Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson in the Cabinet presaged the election of 1800, a democratic debacle. Each side mobilized its own social media, buying newspapers which were partisan rags.

The campaign was ugly. War service of the candidates was an issue then as now, with opponents reminding the electorate (white property owners only then) that Thomas Jefferson had sat out the revolution at home in Monticello. Thomas Jefferson had hired James Callender, a British immigrant to write anti-Adams essays. "Calumny dripped from Callender's pen." Jefferson bankrolled many anti-Adams journalists. He unsparingly "flayed Washington," who, he claimed, had wanted to be a dictator, called Hamilton the "Judas Iscariot of our country," and called Adams a war monger and "poor old man who is in his dotage." The Federalists under Adams were no better. Callender was arrested and charged under the Alien and Sedition Acts -- and we thought the USA Patriot Act was bad -- passed during the Adams' administration. Callender later turned on Jefferson when he was not awarded a plum political post in addition to his monetary rewards. He then went on the dig up the story of Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, a charge that seems now not to have been true, the DNA evidence being somewhat inconclusive given the number of other Jefferson males in the area, although I suppose the jury is still out in some minds. But I digress, the only point being that campaigns in the early 18th century were often more bitter than those today.

Thomas Jefferson had hired James Callender, a British immigrant to write anti-Adams essays. "Calumny dripped from Callender's pen." Jefferson bankrolled many anti-Adams journalists. He unsparingly "flayed Washington," who, he claimed, had wanted to be a dictator, called Hamilton the "Judas Iscariot of our country," and called Adams a war monger and "poor old man who is in his dotage." The Federalists under Adams were no better. Callender was arrested and charged under the Alien and Sedition Acts -- and we thought the USA Patriot Act was bad -- passed during the Adams' administration. Callender later turned on Jefferson when he was not awarded a plum political post in addition to his monetary rewards. He then went on the dig up the story of Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, a charge that seems now not to have been true, the DNA evidence being somewhat inconclusive given the number of other Jefferson males in the area, although I suppose the jury is still out in some minds. But I digress, the only point being that campaigns in the early 18th century were often more bitter than those today.

Hamilton doesn't come off as well as he did in Ferling's earlier books; Jefferson and Adams better. Hamilton is portrayed as power hungry and responsible for the ostensible sins of the Adams administration such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Personally, I admire Adams for his peacefully relinquishing power -- I believe the first instance in history a leader stepped down from power without some kind of violence -- but Hamilton is getting a bad rap. His emphasis on honoring the debts and fiscal stability was very important. You have to feel sorry for Adams, sandwiched between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Adams was chained to the Alien and Sedition Acts which were wildly unpopular, especially following the arrest and imprisonment of Callender for his calumnious broadsides against the Federalists (which eponymous society today appears to have completely abandoned.) Republican (same problem -- it's certainly ironic that the name became associated with abolitionism several decades later even if the pro-slave party of Jefferson and Madison became just the Democratic Party) papers sprang up all over supported by wealthy landowners and even in one case by a corporation that sold shares for just that purpose. Their rhetoric was bitter: The Aurora called Washington's Farewell Address the "loathings of a sick mind," asked whether he was "an impostor or an apostate" and accused him of being traitorous, like Benedict Arnold. Adams was but "old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled and toothless" and, "like polluted water to be cast out the back door, "a repulsive pedant...a gross hypocrite".

Read this with America Afire Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800. There were times when listening to this book was like listening to news programs today. Virginia threatening to secede if Jefferson was not elected, militias formed to storm the Capitol if their candidate was not elected, Jefferson warning that he couldn't control his supporters, extreme politicking and horse trading, and this was just the third election in the nation's history. I think a good case could be made that the 1789 constitution was certainly not worth much and a civil war just a few decades later adds credence to this view. Given the number of times in our history when the winner of the popular vote did not become president, I wonder if it isn't time to dump a system that didn't even work from the start. The story of the friendship and then enmity between these two giants is well known, but Ferling has written a very readable account that sets the scene well. ( )

This is a great account of an historic election and critical moment in the American experiment. Why? Well, as Ferling points out, this was the first time in history, anywhere, that power transferred bloodlessly and calmly from one party to another which had opposing views. It was without precedence and worked. And these were not just two happy political parties, glad to be rid of George III, and led by co-authors of the Declaration of Independence that saw eye to eye. No. They were bitter political rivals.

Over a good part of the 215 page text, Ferling builds up to the election with a summary of the history between 1786 to 1800, and he does this very effectively, keeping it concise and painting portraits of the people involved, beyond Jefferson and Adams to the others of the time. The mudslinging, backroom politics, and vicious behavior make you realize that politics has always been ugly, it’s not a function of today’s Washington, and it will make you pause when handling a $10 bill, with Alexander’s Hamilton’s mug on it.

On the other hand, despite all of that negativity, there was passion in the views because both sides ‘had a point’, and the stakes in forming a new country were high.

Ironically in those days the Federalists were the conservative party and the Republicans were the liberals. The Federalists were in general pro-monarchy, elitist, supporters of established church, and used the Sedition Act to destroy the concept of a free press … all leaning back to the biggest of big government, monarchy. They were the party of the rich, and favored maintaining the status quo. They were pro-English. This was the party of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton.

Republicans by contrast wanted a much smaller government, as today’s republicans do, but were quite liberal for their day in wanting all citizens to be treated equally, separation of church and state, and freedom of the press. They wanted to create the world anew. Blurring class distinctions was viewed as favorable. They were pro-French, and notably pro-French Revolution, which the Federalists were aghast over. This was the party of Jefferson, Madison, and Paine. Jefferson and Paine are personal heroes of mine.

Aside from this clash, the mechanics of the election were fascinating. In these early elections each party put forth two presidential candidates, then each electoral college member voted for two of them, with the rule that one of those votes couldn’t be for a candidate from the state they represented. The one with the most votes was president, and the runner-up was vice-president; this was how following the election of 1796, Adams was president and Jefferson was vice-president, despite having very different political views.

The election of 1800 was extraordinarily close – Jefferson tied with Aaron Burr with 73 votes, Adams had 65, and Pinckney had 64, all within easy reach if things had swung slightly differently (e.g. if slaves had not counted as 3/5 of a person, Adams would have won). The election was then decided in the House of Representatives after protracted and vitriolic debate. Adams left town, simply, at dawn, without shaking Jefferson’s hand. Jefferson, eschewing pomp, walked to the Inauguration. Ferling includes an epilogue that captures their reconciliation which started with Adams reaching out to Jefferson, some of their personal difficulties such as Jefferson’s debt, and then their simultaneous demise on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration.

A fascinating tale, and well told. History books can sometimes suffer from being dry or verbose, and this was neither.

Quotes:
“Jefferson and Adams harbored different dreams for the American Revolution. Whereas Adams envisioned the people, through government, fostering a greater good, Jefferson wished to ensure that individuals would be liberated from governments. He sought the least possible government – ‘energetic government is … always oppressive,’ he remarked – and was ever more distrustful of government the further removed it was from local control.”

Adams’ view, and no matter what your politics are, you can see eerie overtones of this in today’s America, to its detriment:
“Finally, as was true of most Federalists, Adams was alarmed by signs that the United States was democratizing. Before political parties existed in the 1790s, Adams had published warnings of how partisan electioneering – what he called the ‘Cankerworm’ that had brought down every previous republic – would corrupt the American political system. When caught between powerful rival interests, democratic politicians inevitably would be driven to deceit, he had predicted. Virtue and integrity would vanish. Revenge and malice would prevail. Voters would be duped and the press misled, pushing the system toward an unsavory end: a democratic tyranny in which the majority plundered the minority. For Adams, the notion that government could realize the will of the people was disingenuous. Society was divided into so many competing interests that a single popular will seldom existed. … Instead, Adams favored system in which the brightest and most virtuous men could be drawn into public life but then be insulated from the necessity to pander to the popular thirst. If somehow the independence of good men could be preserved so that they could govern prudently and judiciously, the result would be good government for the greatest number.”

Jefferson’s view:
“Jefferson was appalled by the powerlessness of most inhabitants in Europe. … in Jefferson’s mind monarchical rule symbolized all that was wrong with the venality, exploitation, and despair that he encountered throughout Europe. But he understood too that widespread misery also sprang from a privileged aristocracy that crushed the peasant’s opportunity for self-betterment, and from the church, the vehicle used by kings and noblemen to bind the citizenry in the shackles of ignorance, superstition, and subservience.”

“He told a European observer who sought to understand politics in the United States that two American political parties existed: ‘One which fears the people the most, the other the government.’”

“The earth belongs to the living and no generation should be bound by the decisions of its predecessors, Jefferson told Adams. Stability is crucial and is reinforced by obedience to old laws and charters so that uniformity ‘becomes a national Habit,’ Adams responded.”

Lastly this one, which the Federalists pounced on and used as ‘evidence’ that Jefferson was an atheist:
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ( )