Presidential Biographies: Washington and Adams

I have half a mind to read a biography of all the U.S. Presidents.  Knowing myself, I expect to accomplish much of the goal, but since, to me, reading biographies is something of a chore, it's not likely I'll finish.  I have, however, recently read two:  His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis and John Adams: A Life by John Ferling.

His Excellency: George Washinton

The Ellis book focused on the inner Washington.  It was more of a character study than a comprehensive story of his life.   Ellis expounded on Washington's bravery, self-possession and innate ability to lead leaving no doubt Washington was a man born for his time.  It would seem he was the ideal individual to lead the Continental Army and to serve as the first president of a fragile, new nation.

John Adams: A Life 

Ferling's book was much more thorough.  As I read the Adam's biography, I was struck by both the contrasts and similarities between Washington and Adams.   There were, of course, physical differences--Washington was tall and muscular while Adams was short and rotund.  While relatively uneducated, Washington rose to his position because of the competency he demonstrated in leading and fighting during the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War.  Adams, on the other hand, was highly educated and earned his place in history primarily by sheer brain power.  As a statesman but never a soldier, Adams' weapon was his tongue.

There were many similarities as well.  Neither were instigators of revolution.  They were a little slow to come around to the idea of independence from Britain.  However, once they embraced it, both sacrificed the majority of their adult lives to the cause.  Although both ambitious, they were also men of principle who put the nation's best interests ahead of their own.


Of all I read, what leaves me pondering the most are the peripheral players in the Washington and Adams' sagas:  Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.  These two are treated differently by Ellis and Ferling.  Ellis describes Thomas Jefferson as the 'original snake in the grass' (I don't have the benefit of having the book anymore, but I'm fairly certain he used those words).  He was the forerunner of today's conniving politicians using underhanded means to promote his own interests.  Ellis' treatment of Hamilton was more favorable.  He did describe him as smart, ambitious and powerful, as the key advisor to Washington, but he didn't cast him in a negative light.

Ferling, on the other hand, makes Jefferson a comparatively benign political player.  Certainly he was mentioned as John Adam's opposition in the 1800 election, and their idealogical differences were explored.  However, Thomas Jefferson was NOT portrayed as the villain by Ferling.  To Ferling, Hamilton was the villain.  He was Washington's puppet-master, he was an unprincipled blackguard, he was the reason Adams lost the second election.

The difference in treatment helps me to see that these biographies are subject to interpretation and bias.

Incidentally, David McCullough's biography of John Adams did treat Jefferson as a treacherous individual.  Although it's been several years since I read McCullough's book, I don't recall similar descriptions of Hamilton.

My interest in both Jefferson and Hamilton is definitely piqued.