Customer Reviews

John Hancock: Merchant King and American Patriot

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

So John Hancock turns out to be a pretty interesting fellow, the millionaire head of a mercantile empire who initially gets dragged into revolutionary politics to prevent the revolutionaries from vandalizing his property, but converts and becomes a leading, if moderate, revolutionary voice. A vain man and one accustomed to luxury, he nevertheless gives very generously of both his money and his time to the revolutionary cause and to the governing of Massachusetts.

His career includes stints as the president of the continental congress, member of the Massachusetts legislature and governor of the newly independent state of MA. His roles in the revolution and the adoption of the constitution are central: as president of congress, his is initially the only signature on the Declaration of Independence; he coordinates and equips the continental army, including large expenditures out of his own pocket; he turns the tide in Massachusetts in favor of ratification.

So the biography is interesting because the man is interesting, even pivotal. It's also well-written, in the sense of being easy to read.

But the book's also a little spiteful. Anyone who clashes with Hancock, ever, comes in for a little sting from the biographer's pen. Sam Adams, in particular, is described as a bloodthirsty, erratic and backstabbing radical, who undercuts and betrays Hancock at every turn. Even George Washington is painted as behaving irrationally, in contrast with Hancock's genteel polish, in respect of some offers of hospitality that Hancock extends to the general, and Unger seems incapable of mentioning John Adams without calling him "fat little John Adams".

His name is known to all, being a common part of the vernacular and synonymous with ones signature, yet, he remains largely unknown to history other than the placement of his signature upon our Declaration of Independence. The mysterious identity that is John Hancock is well presented here in JOHN HANCOCK: MERCHANT KING AND AMERICAN PATRIOT by Harlow Giles Unger. This is perhaps, singly, the most informative tome to date on Hancock's life and career, yet is not without criticism.

Unger deftly replicates all the trappings of a good biography here, beginning with a good genealogy of the Hancock family and their path to prominence and prosperity, at least for parts of the family. The occurrences which set into motion, John Hancock's life being dramatically altered by being taken under the care of his childless and wealthy Uncle Thomas and Aunt Lydia, are well documented here. The book goes on to lend a credible chronicle of Hancock's life; his rise to wealth and prominence, his early involvement with the Sons of Liberty, his entrance and influence in the political spectrum, which covered the last three decades of his life and the many struggles, both politically and personally, of Hancock's life. Unger takes particular care to illustrate Hancock's benevolence to the less fortunate.

Though I have a lot to say in favor of this book, there is also much to take exception with. For example, Unger, himself a correspondent for the London Times Herald and overtly unsympathetic to the Colonialists cause, states that Gen. Amherst's plan to send smallpox laden blankets to the Indians in 1863 was rejected, however, Amherst himself admitted in a private letter that infected blankets had indeed been a part of the British arsenal put into use against Pontiac and the Indians. Unger also continuously and viciously attacks revolutionary advocates such as James Otis, Patrick Henry and, in particular, Samuel Adams, who is the recipient of endless attacks of vitriolic banter throughout the book. Though the relationship between Hancock and Adams was strained, the authors' incessant loathing of Adams eventually detracts from the overall work.

These shameless attacks diminish this otherwise valuable resource that accurately touches on an endless array of historically significant events, such as early disputes on the issue of slavery, Benjamin Church's betrayal of the patriot cause, and John Dickenson's invaluable dissertation on the Townsend Acts, just to name a few. Overall, I believe this a worthy read, accurate on most accounts, but would have been far better had Unger saddled his disdain for the patriot cause.

John Hancock is certainly worthy of the praise of a grateful nation and a man we tend to know little about and often, overlook completely for his sacrifice and dedication to the liberty of the states. Perhaps in the near future, publishers will see fit to provide us with a more balanced biography on this great patriot, but until then, this book will have to suffice as the best source available.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

Perhaps my expectations were set too high by the biography I read on Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I found Unger's book on John Hancock easy to read, interesting, but lacking of facts and objectivity. I got the impression that the author did not like any of the people involved in the American Revolution. Is this author a Tory? His descriptions of people and things were often shallow and repetitive. For example...Unger used the description of a livered carriage with four horses for Hancock throughout the book many, many times, but does not describe once what this really means. How many servants were working the carriage? Were they slaves? Were they in uniform? If so, what colors? How fancy? The book does not describe in much detail the relationships Hancock has with other founders other than Sam Adams whom he paints extremely negatively.

Plus, Unger gets at least one important historical fact wrong. Here's what I got from Isaacson's book: John Hancock, declared at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together." To which, Ben Franklin replied, "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In Unger's book, he attributes the first quote to Franklin not Hancock and omits the second quote all together - which is the famous line!

It just seems to me the author was sloppy in research and lazy in writing this book. If you can't find anything else about Hancock, then the information is interesting - I did find out that the Declaration was signed by one person - Hancock for the first month of its existence and that they created 13 originals - one for each state. It's a very quick read, but don't rely on this book as the final answer on what went on during the Revolution.

Unger makes history come alive again with his portrait of John Hancock. Hancock's contribution to financing the revolutionary cause in Boston was not well known to me and I found that information and his competition for control of public sentiment with Samual Adams very interesting. Unger always adds lots of intimate personal details that make his books very readable and interesting. I also recommend his books on Lafayette, and his biography of George Washington.

John Hancock by Harlow Unger is an excellent addition to the literature on the Revolutionarily War. It takes a very fresh approach to the often stale ideas of why the revolution started. It alleges that the early phase of the push towards war had little to do with liberty and everything to do with personal vendetta and economics. He clearly articulates the personal animosity of Otis and Sam Adams towards the royal governor and their constant push to rally the mob via the Sons of Liberty. Also shown is the merchant class led by Hancock who felt the squeeze of British taxes and policies and pushed back with their agents in London. As the situation became untenable in London it became necessary for the merchants via Hancock to take control of the mobs and direct their focus. One of the most important contributions to the Revolution that Hancock makes is the funding. At various points Hancock is almost singlehandedly funding out of his own pocket and raising money via the merchant class to buy guns, pay troops, and cover the expenses of entertaining diplomats.
There are a few problems with this book that do need to be addressed. The author points out that Hancock was in the right place at the right time in many cases and often ended up in his positions via luck more than political maneuvering. The author credits Hancock with being ahead of the curve each time and in some cases this is simply not true when events were started by others. There is a clear distaste for John Adams and while post revolution it is easy to find fault with the Jacobin tendencies it seems he is treated very harsh by Unger.
Overall it is still refreshing to see a different take on why the revolution started and looking past the Sam Adams bias it is a four start book. Highly recommended for those who have read a lot of American Revolution and are looking for a fresh approach.

events leading to independence. After reading Unger's work, you would think that John Hancock single handedly brought this country to freedom. The author's extreme adulation for his subject constantly paints Hancock in positive light and ALWAYS as the victim of others, never at fault. Lame excuses are given for why Hancock did not receive this office or that praise. One of the most disturbing elements is the vindictive condemnation of Samuel Adams (probably the man most singularly responsible for influencing the Declaration of Independence) is incredibly overdone and grossly inaccurate. Speeches which were written by Adams (and some given by Adams) are credited to Hancock, a man who is overwhelmingly acknowledged as lacking the writing ability for such speeches. Hancock is instrumental in bringing about revolution but unfortunately, not in the way suggested by this author.

This book is written so well, I couldn't put it down. I have looked for other books by this author. He is a real story teller. Hancocks life is worth knowing and a credit to the founders.

I wanted to learn about Hancock's life, how he participated in the revolution, and more. It's incredible how the author seems to set Hancock apart from all others.
According to Giles, Hancock could do no wrong. Is there some bias based on their connection to Harvard? Ivy League arrogance in print.

I received this book first of three various bios that I ordered at the same time. I could not put this book down. It was written so well with many references. It was great.

This book is an informative read regarding the life of John Hancock. The book was well written, but with one major downfall. The author seems to have an irrational hatred of Samuel Adams. In every instance where Sam Adams is mentioned, the author can't seem to refrain from making some negative innuendo. I would have found the book much more enjoyable other Founding Fathers weren't constantly being degraded.