Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue Book Review
Although Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had very different political views, they were able to maintain their friendship through the Revolutionary era. In Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue, Merrill D. Peterson recounts the divergent political ideologies that emerged during the early decades of America as seen through the relationship of these two former US presidents. Peterson was born to a Baptist minister in Kansas in 1921, and lived with his mother in a boarding house after his parents divorced. After receiving his PhD in American History from Harvard, Peterson became a professor at the University of Virginia. Peterson is well known for his books about Thomas Jefferson. He received the 1961 Bancroft Prize, which is a very prominent award in American History.
Merrill Peterson’s principal goal in writing Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue was to convey that friendship has greater value than the power of political parties. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams first met at the Second Continental Congress, and although their political views were slightly different, Jefferson an idealist and Adams a realist, the spirit of the revolution bound them together in a friendship that would last for half a century. As the US government progressed, their political views drove apart as the Federalist and Republican parties gained supremacy. Jefferson and Adams continued to diverge in their beliefs due to America’s diplomatic policies: Adams favored economic and political ties to Britain, while Jefferson buttressed the French Revolution and maintaining peaceful relations with France. Despite the fact that their final parting during the presidential election of 1800 ended on a sour note, Jefferson initiated reconciliation after a decade, and the two maintained communication regarding philosophical and religious matters until their deaths. Both Adams and Jefferson passed away on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which dramatically marked the end of the revolutionary era.
The overall organization of the book is awkward: it is broken up into only four chapters with no subheadings, making navigation nearly impossible. This format was most likely due to the fact that the material in the book was presented as four speeches, originally. However, Peterson should have considered that his audience is readers, not listeners of speeches. Fortunately, the book included an index to make up for the dearth of frequent chapter titles. Instead of using aids like maps, charts, and tables that are not appropriate to this topic, Peterson uses historical quotes as evidence to support his thesis (besides the portraits of Jefferson and Adams at the beginning of the book.)
Although Peterson’s writing style is graspable, prior knowledge of this era’s history is necessary for a complete understanding of the text. Peterson’s overuse of quotes, even though they are placed in proper context, causes them to be able to be taken out of context leading to misinterpretation of the quotes. Throughout the text, Peterson tends to portray Adams in a negative light, while consistently giving a positive image of Jefferson. This bias may be caused by his position of professor of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at the University of Virginia. Peterson continues to worsen the results of this bias by using excerpts of Adams’ personal journals, where he, like most Puritans, admits his failures, a task that Jefferson never took up.
One of the most interesting aspects of Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue, was the role that party politics and political slander played, even in the times of the founding fathers, which are topics not usually mentioned in traditional history books. I found it intriguing that many of the quotes were from private communication, without being altered for the public. If unaltered private political communication of this nature were made public today, it would be appalling. After reading about the relationship between these two great figures, I acquired knowledge about the revolutionary period. I would recommend this book to students who are interested in American history because it is succinct, understandable, and offers a unique outlook on the revolutionary era.
Although Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had very different political views, they were able to maintain their friendship through the Revolutionary era. In Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue, Merrill D. Peterson recounts the divergent political ideologies that emerged during the early decades of America as seen through the relationship of these two former US presidents. Peterson was born to a Baptist minister in Kansas in 1921, and lived with his mother in a boarding house after his parents divorced. After receiving his PhD in American History from Harvard, Peterson became a professor at the University of Virginia. Peterson is well known for his books about Thomas Jefferson. He received the 1961 Bancroft Prize, which is a very prominent award in American History.
Merrill Peterson’s principal goal in writing Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue was to convey that friendship has greater value than the power of political parties. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams first met at the Second Continental Congress, and although their political views were slightly different, Jefferson an idealist and Adams a realist, the spirit of the revolution bound them together in a friendship that would last for half a century. As the US government progressed, their political views drove apart as the Federalist and Republican parties gained supremacy. Jefferson and Adams continued to diverge in their beliefs due to America’s diplomatic policies: Adams favored economic and political ties to Britain, while Jefferson buttressed the French Revolution and maintaining peaceful relations with France. Despite the fact that their final parting during the presidential election of 1800 ended on a sour note, Jefferson initiated reconciliation after a decade, and the two maintained communication regarding philosophical and religious matters until their deaths. Both Adams and Jefferson passed away on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which dramatically marked the end of the revolutionary era.
The overall organization of the book is awkward: it is broken up into only four chapters with no subheadings, making navigation nearly impossible. This format was most likely due to the fact that the material in the book was presented as four speeches, originally. However, Peterson should have considered that his audience is readers, not listeners of speeches. Fortunately, the book included an index to make up for the dearth of frequent chapter titles. Instead of using aids like maps, charts, and tables that are not appropriate to this topic, Peterson uses historical quotes as evidence to support his thesis (besides the portraits of Jefferson and Adams at the beginning of the book.)
Although Peterson’s writing style is graspable, prior knowledge of this era’s history is necessary for a complete understanding of the text. Peterson’s overuse of quotes, even though they are placed in proper context, causes them to be able to be taken out of context leading to misinterpretation of the quotes. Throughout the text, Peterson tends to portray Adams in a negative light, while consistently giving a positive image of Jefferson. This bias may be caused by his position of professor of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at the University of Virginia. Peterson continues to worsen the results of this bias by using excerpts of Adams’ personal journals, where he, like most Puritans, admits his failures, a task that Jefferson never took up.
One of the most interesting aspects of Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue, was the role that party politics and political slander played, even in the times of the founding fathers, which are topics not usually mentioned in traditional history books. I found it intriguing that many of the quotes were from private communication, without being altered for the public. If unaltered private political communication of this nature were made public today, it would be appalling. After reading about the relationship between these two great figures, I acquired knowledge about the revolutionary period. I would recommend this book to students who are interested in American history because it is succinct, understandable, and offers a unique outlook on the revolutionary era.