John Ferling

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 show more 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.” show less

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 show more 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. show less

John Ferling’s *Shots Heard Round the World* reframes the American Revolution as a global power struggle rather than a tidy colonial rebellion. He shows how British miscalculations, American persistence, and European rivalries collided to shape the outcome. France and Spain are not background characters but decisive players, turning a fragile insurgency into an international war Britain could not sustain. Ferling’s portraits of Washington and British leadership feel measured and human, show more not mythic. The prose is clear, the research deep, and the argument persuasive. It’s a brisk reminder that American independence was never inevitable. ChatGPT 5.2 show less

I greatly enjoyed "Adams vs. Jefferson" for the author's accessible, engaging, and erudite style, its nuanced portrayals of the main actors and the motives and personal experiences that made them tick, and the book's overall careful attention to explicating a key period in the development of America's nascent federal government. I hadn't known much at all about John Adams or his background; and, as for Jefferson, the fiery author of the Declaration, I was fascinated by the accounts of his show more apparent ambiguity about remaining in the public spotlight, his avoidance of public speaking, and his discomfort with being disagreeable with others. As contemporary Americans, we are lucky to reap the contributions to our nation of the Revolutionary Generation's noble instincts and passions, however imperfect they were; and it is very worthwhile to spend time learning something about this period through Ferling's articulate and careful scholarship. show less