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.
