Customer Reviews

America's First Dynasty : The Adamses, 1735-1918

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

An interesting and nicely readable survey of four generations of one of America's founding families. Brookhiser's book doesn't have the detail of McCollough's recent biography on Adams (this isn't a complaint, by the way!). Instead, it traces family traits and dispositions through their historical and psychological course over a period of 150 years or so.

Each one of the mini-biographies of the four Adamses Brookhiser discusses--John, John Quincy, Charles, and Henry--are fascinating in themselves. But what I think is especially valuable is the thread of melancholy that seems to run through the Adams lineage, a thread Brookhiser paints with innuendo rather than bold stroke. John's ambition and frustrated pride, John Quincy's self-punishing advocacy of unpopular causes, Charles' heart-breaking need to establish a postmortem relationship with his father by editing John Quincy's multi-volumed diary, Henry's world-weariness that expresses itself in his cleverly cynical autobiography or his romantic nostalgia for a medieval period that really never was: each of the Adamses suffers from and copes with a dark side in his own way. The darkness is what makes them all so incredibly intriguing and, combined with a New England work ethic, creates a restlessness in them that probably fuels their success.

Two bonuses in the book: first, provocative insights one picks up about the Adamses (for example, Charles's aristocratic, stiff-upper-lip handling of his own increasing dotage in his last years--how Adams-like; or Henry's refusal to mourn the beloved wife who killed herself--again, only an Adams could put on such a public front); second, the book's topic invites us to ask ourselves why it is that we Americans, who supposedly deplore aristocracy out of a loyalty to our democratic traditions, so enjoy and protect our homegrown dynasties. The Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Bushes--we either love 'em or love to hate 'em. A good question to ask ourselves is "why?".

Richard Brookhiser doesn't write 'biographies' in the conventional sense -- and certainly not in the modern sense, in which writers seem determined to prove that once-admired historical figures are just as messed up as the rest of us, and probably even worse. No, what Brookhiser attempts to do (as I believe he noted in 'Founding Father,' his book about George Washington) is reclaim the ancient idea of biography as a means of understanding and exploring ideas about civic virtue, citizenship, and (dare we say?) morals.

This isn't to say that Brookhiser whitewashes his subjects. Far from it: his subjects come through in this book both as sharply defined individuals and as members of a family with a very clear sense of itself and its place in history. That he chooses not to bog himself down in domestic minutia doesn't detract from the quality of the biography, and enhances the points he's trying to make.

If this book were a novel, cover blurbs would breathlessly proclaim it 'the sweeping saga of an American family across four tempestuous generations.' And the description wouldn't be far wrong. From the time of the Founding until the First World War, the Adams family was (to varying degrees at various times, but always to some extent) among the most prominent, influential, respected, and reviled families in America. Brookhiser does a fine job showing how four individual members of this family bore that inheritance, and shaped, and were shaped by, what it meant to be an Adams. If 'the contract of the [American] founding ... was a contract with their family' (p. 199), the family had contractual obligations in return. Many Adamses chose not to fulfill those 'obligations.' But the four who most notably did, did so with one eye on their times and the other on their patrimony.

The four biographies are fascinating in their own rights. But the section of the book I most enjoyed was the final four chapters, in which Brookhiser weighs one Adams against another and against some of the perennial questions of American civic life -- most notably the question of Republic versus Empire. It's here, especially, that Brookhiser shows how the lessons of the Adams dynasty apply to our own times as well as theirs.

The most obvious appeal of 'America's First Dynasty' is to students of political history. But it also bears reading for the light it shines on current political, constitutional, and cultural questions, and for the recurring dilemma of the family in American political life. For if the supermarket tabloids still label a certain other political/media clan as 'America's royal family,' it's worth remembering that they're not the first nor, by any stretch, the most important. This book is definitely worth a read.

After Richard Brookshiser's excellent - even inspirational - short biographies of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, I eagerly purchased AMERICA'S FIRST DYNASTY with great expectations. Sadly, the book doesn't live up to my hopes, and does not do its subjects justice.

The book contains four mini-biographies (even briefer than Brookshiser's norm) of the four "great" Adamses - John, John Quincy, Charles Francis, and Henry. Their four lives spanned from 1735 through 1918 and tell the tale of America during that time. Which is part of the problem with the book - the scope is way too big for a work slightly longer than 200 pages.

While Brookshiser seemed to capture the essence of Washington and Hamilton, his scant treatment of each Adams only scratches the surface of each life. At the same time the book is more four strung-together stories, rather than an ongoing story (for instance, in chapters about one Adams, Brookshiser rarely writes about the others despite their overlapping lives). At the end of the book, perhaps in an attempt to identify trends to tie these stories together, or perhaps only to push up the page length, Brookshiser writes concluding chapters on "themes."

The book fails for another reason, having to do with the concept of "greatness." If there is such a thing as a "great man," John Adams is a legitimate candidate for the title. Brookshiser tries to make the case that the other three hold such a claim, too, but he (or rather they) fall short. John Quincy, whose story Brookshiser tells best, was an accomplished politician, but he would almost certainly be forgotten if not for his famous name, his failed presidency, and Steven Spielberg's film, AMISTAD. The case for Charles Francis' greatness is tougher still, and Brookshiser sort of admits as much ("John Adams said, foolishly, that he had never been a great man. Charles Francis Adams might have said it, with more truth." P. 211-212). Brookshiser's case for Charles Francis is that his understated style as Lincoln's ambassador to England helped keep the British from siding with the Confederacy. This is a bit of a stretch, but beyond that, the rest of Charles Francis' life is not especially spectacular.

Henry Adams, the "last generation" (Brookshiser does not indicate if John Adams has any direct descendents still alive) never served as a public official as his famous forefathers had. While Henry was well-known, Brookshiser struggles for an explanation for how he represents the continuation of a "dynasty." Henry was a writer, and while it is certainly true that the others also wrote, Brookshiser does not present the Adamses as a dynasty of writers. Instead, they are a dynasty of "great men." Henry enters the pantheon for his book, MONT SAINT MICHEL AND CHARTES (interestingly, not the better known, EDUCATION OF HENRY ADAMS). Henry's great book apparently has virtually nothing to do with politics or public affairs, so accepting that this is truly a "great book," it is an achievement far removed from those of his family.

So, AMERICA'S FIRST DYNASTY is oddly incoherent. The idea for the book was good, and Brookshiser probably couldn't get away with simply writing a biography of John Adams in the wake of David McCullough's book, but in the future he should stick to biographies of single individuals. This book certainly isn't so bad as to turn me away from future books by Brookshiser, and specifically I'm hoping her turns his attention to Ben Franklin, who is prominent in all three of his period books. But if this marks he third installment in a series on our nation's founders, it will not stand up as the best.

"America` First Dynasty" by Richard Brookhiser. Sub-titled: "The Adamses, 1713-1918".
Understandably, this book concentrates on the two presidents, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Their contributions as one-term presidents help to establish democracy in the nascent United States. Brookhiser notes that the two Adamses were the first presidents not from Virginia. Much of what John Adams did became precedents for later presidents.

It appears to me that the author makes the tacit assumption that the reader has a fairly good knowledge of American history, so he casually introduces lesser know subjects, such as the "Know Nothing Party " (Native American Party) and the anti-Masonic efforts in upstate New York. This, of course, leads you to things that you want to examine further, but, on the other hand, inhibits the free-flow of the book.

I think that the author is stretching to consider Charles Francis or even Henry Adams as "greats" who were continuing the Adams "dynasty". I did, however, enjoy Brookhiser's "book review" approach to "The Education of Henry Adams" and Henry's book on Mont St. Michel. Perhaps the next book by Brookhiser would be the comparison of the contributions of the Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts and the Bushes: all presidents who related by blood.

I listened to the seven tapes as I commuted around Boston; excellent reading by Dan Cashman. It is appropriate to note the name of the town of Haverhill is pronounced as HAV AAAA rill by the natives.. The reader sounded it out and said Have Er Hill, which is logical but not the way it is said in Massachusetts. Further, the hometown of the Adamses , Quincy, is said as "QuinZZZy".

This book reads rather like a "Cliff's Notes" version of American political history. One good example is that the author spends all of one page on John Quincy Adams' election to the presidency. It is remarkable that he can detail the lives of these four men, who lived through and indeed shaped some of the most memorable periods in American history without conveying any of the excitement or grandeur of these remarkable men. Perhaps the author was on assignment or had a contract to fill because his dry, somewhat sarcastic style leaves one wondering why he bothered at all.

In "America's First Dynasty," editor and columnist Richard Brookhiser examines the four generations of a family that produced two single-term presidents, John Adams and his son John Quincy; one-term congressman Charles Francis Adams, remembered mostly for his role as ambassador to Britain during the Civil War; and the historian and memoirist, Henry Adams. Each figure is described with short biographical summaries that read like fleshed-out Wikipedia entries scattered with anecdotes, and the volume concludes with three chapters summarizing the achievements and influence of this "dynasty."

There's certainly a place for the type of overview Brookhiser has set out to write; for readers who know little about these four figures, this book provides a cursory introduction to their biographies. But it's unlikely readers will close the book with enthusiasm for any of its subjects. Oddly, it appears that Brookhiser doesn't think much of these four men, either. For example, the most memorable takeaway from the section on John Adams is that America's second President is the "first loser" in American presidential politics. (He repeats this obloquy three times.) More generally, Brookhiser has a hard time supporting the theme of his book, or for that matter, its title. In one of the summary chapters, he admits that "most of the Adamses, favored by education, experience of the world, and christening, were either simply talented, or simply normal, or simply failures. They never did a great thing...." (Really?) For a book about an alleged dynasty, family matters--not to mention the wives--get relatively short shrift, and one closes the book with a sense that, with the exception of four notable figures, the Adams family was a collection of washouts and drunks who kept their women in the background. Even Abigail's influence is effectively neutralized and the suicide of Henry's wife, which many literary historians and biographers have emphasized as perhaps the central incident of his life, merits only two short paragraphs.

What these four generations bestowed on their country, Brookhiser suggests, was a lot of verbiage: "At the close of Henry Adams's life, he could look back on a century and a half of family writing. No American political dynasty has been so prolific . . . an ocean of state papers, polemics, history, letters, and diaries." (If the criterion is merely word count, I suppose the Jameses are America's premier literary dynasty.) Yet the book hardly follows through on the implication of this statement: how has the "ocean" of paper influenced American discourse and politics? What makes this assortment of statesmen and "losers" a dynasty? And, more important, why does their writing matter today?

The reality is that there are only two and a half significant political figures in this so-called political dynasty. By any standard, Charles Francis could hardly be considered a political juggernaut, but he certainly carried on the tradition (if one can call it that) established by his father and grandfather. As for the last of the Adamses: even Brookhiser finds in Henry's writing "unrelieved irony, the byproduct of forswearing of power." Henry's influence on his contemporaries was relatively modest; after all, his two greatest works were privately published and scarcely read until after his death. Yet, while his political influence was nil, Henry's influence on the literature and culture of succeeding generations of Americans was inestimable--although you wouldn't know it from this book. Perhaps unintentionally, Brookhiser manages to prove that a political dynasty brewed in the United States is, thankfully, a pale imitation of its European counterpart.

For a quick and dirty basic description of the famous sons of Adams, feel free to indulge in this quick and easy read. As other have indicated, it generally lacks anything unique from other works on the family, with the exception of Brookheiser's commentary. It is, as with his other works, very well written.

It is plainly evident from this work and his others that Brookheiser isn't a big fan of John Adams and his progeny. For example, he clearly states that of the six presidents, only two were not reelected; John and John Quincy. Of the three presidents who did not attend their replacements' inauguration, two were Adams. These are true facts, but placed in the context of this book and the general tone of its writing, it is evident he is less than enamored with this family. He is entitled to his opinion, which at times is very well presented, but it reads more as a USA Today editorial than a piece of historical non-fiction.

Having recently read John McCullough's excellent biography on John Adams, I was thrilled to see this book come out because I wanted the opportunity to learn more about the decendants and family of this little known nor celebrated American.

Sad to say, I was gravely disappointed.

The book is well written (as one would expect from a professional journalist) but is so thin on analysis and insight one is hard pressed to say if there is any value in the book at all. The author has refrained from drawing from original sources; instead he quotes extensively from others' works piecemeal. This flimsy technique he uses to draw conclusions regarding character and modivation that can only be seen as outrageous and unsupported. It is clear that Mr. Brookhiser doesn't comprehend the conservative temperment of 18th Century New England (and still characteristic of native Yankees even today) nor how it is possible for those who believe strongly in causes that will benefit the common good to devote themselves unselfishly to achieve those ends.

Instead of recognizing and understanding how this attitude modivated the Adams family, Mr. Brookhiser discounts it. When commenting on John Adams' disgust and unwillingness to participate in dirty party politics, a newly emerging phenomenon in the USA at that time, which Mr. Adams saw as not being beneficial to the interests of America as a whole (as if many of us in America don't think the same thing today!), Mr. Brookhiser views this attitude as.. self-deceptive (in other words, Mr. Adams just didn't want to admit his role). When John and Abigail Adams were separated for eight years during John's ministry to France and Holland, Mr. Brookhiser characterizes this absence as neglect, not as enormous self-sacrifice to a cause they both believed in. He focuses on a nine month period when Abigail didn't receive any letters from John, but doesn't mention the thousands of others they sent to each other.

I could go on.

No one is perfect, and certainly our Founding Fathers weren't either. But the four generations of Adams' who gave so much of themselves to the creation of America deserve more than the thinly disguised distain contained in this book as the offering of graditude for their sacrifices.

I eagerly awaited the release of this book, but I must say that I am somewhat disappointed with it. Firstly, I found the book to be very confusing. I'm an intelligent person, but I simply couldn't follow it. Facts (as well as many suppositions) were there, but I found that none of it made a cohesive whole. Regarding the suppositions, I am getting more than a little annoyed an non-fiction works that use terminology such as "could have" "might have been," "probably", etc. instead of stating actual facts. My maxim is, if you don't know for sure, don't put it down on paper. This was a good idea for a book, but I feel that it fell far short of its mark.

This was a very disappointing book. I bought it for $5 and feel I overpaid. It's obvious that Brookhiser dislikes, even hates, the Adamses. He painted cruel pictures of each of the 4 covered, as well as other people who came in contact with them. It was a painful read as a result. It made me wonder what Brookhiser's dislike was based on? Brookhiser certainly never offers any information that would make his subjects worthy of such dislike. While reading the book I was often more interested in Brookhiser and his obvious problems with all things Adams than with the Adamses themselves.

I won't be reading anything else by Brookhiser because I don't want to be subjected to his hatreds and pettiness.