Book Review

Chervinsky, Lindsay M. Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press, 2024.

Over the past thirty years, a bevy of talented historians, including David McCullough, John Ellis, James Grant, and Richard Alan Ryerson, have effectively documented John Adams’s life and achievements. So, why read a new John Adams biography? Lindsay M. Chervinsky, a thoughtful presidential historian, shows in her latest book that there is still room for fresh, insightful interpretations of the second president’s impact and contributions. 

The conventional assessment is that John Adams was a great revolutionary leader but a second-rate president. Over the last fifty years, historians’ evaluations of his time in office have declined. The elder Adams administration now ranks in the second tier, sandwiched between James K. Polk and Joseph Biden.[i] Chervinsky, the Executive Director of the George Washington Presidential Library, in her account of the Adams presidency, encourages readers to reappraise his precedent-making administration, raising their views of the White House’s first resident.

While Chervinsky shows great respect for Adams, she avoids hagiography or hero worship. The former White House Historical Association historian emphasizes Adams’s shortcomings and failings as a leader. Most notably, Adams signed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which limited the free press, suppressed political dissent, and shifted immigration policies for political advantage. Although Adams tepidly supported these anti-democratic laws, his signature on the bills tarnished a previous legacy of civil liberties. Additionally, Chervinsky criticizes the second president for putting his family before the country by spending eight consecutive months at his home in Braintree, Massachusetts, during the peak of war-threatening naval skirmishes with France. Adams believed he could oversee affairs remotely, given the speed of transatlantic communication. However, Chervinsky points out that Adams left his aggressive war-mongering cabinet in Washington unsupervised and acting contrary to his policies.

On the positive side of the ledger, Chervinsky joins other historians in praising Adams for preventing the Quasi-war with the French First Republic from escalating into full-scale conflict. France’s ongoing seizure of American shipping and disrespect toward American diplomats put heavy pressure on the second president to declare war. Adams skillfully avoided American anger and calls for war, as the new nation was grossly unprepared. Such a war could threaten the nation’s independence. Ultimately, Adams might have sacrificed a second term, at least in part, to secure an honorable peace with Napoleon.

Even more importantly, Chervinsky highlights two achievements that previous historians have overlooked, which should boost respect for his leadership today. First, Adams prioritized the country’s interests over those of his Federalist political party. Among other disagreements, Adams sought peace even when his party favored war. The bitter split with his party further damaged his chances of reelection. Alexander Hamilton and other Federalist leaders openly campaigned against Adams for not following the party line. Despite the personal costs, Adams pursued unpopular policies that he believed were in the nation’s best interest. Putting the country above personal or party interests is a rare and admirable act that deserves recognition.

Second, Chervinsky argues that Adams’ leadership helped the country navigate its first constitutional crisis during the 1800 election, even though he lost his reelection bid. The two Republican candidates (not a precursor to the current Republican Party), Thomas Jefferson and New Yorker Aaron Burr, tied in the Electoral College votes. Back then, there was no combined presidential and vice-presidential ticket. The presidency went to the candidate with the most electoral votes, and the vice presidency to the candidate with the second most votes. Initially, the Republican party faithful had designated Jefferson as the presidential candidate and Burr as the vice-presidential candidate. However, due to the imprecise wording in the Constitution, the tie had to be resolved by the House of Representatives, which was still controlled by the existing House (not the newly elected one, as it is today), for the purpose of a presidential selection. 

In balloting by state, the Federalists controlled sufficient states to prevent Jefferson from securing the votes needed to be named president. The jockeying was intense. Some Federalists wanted Adams to be declared a temporary president until a new election could be held. Jefferson, in a meeting with Adams, threatened military force to ensure the Virginian’s selection. Jefferson’s words were no idle warning as Republican governors in Pennsylvania and Virginia readied their state militias to march on Washington. In this situation, Adams could have reacted by joining supportive members of his party to continue his presidency.

Deciding that open warfare would endanger the nascent republic, Adams embarked on a selfless process to support the constitutional process. The second president informed Jefferson that he would not be a party to an interim presidency or other unconstitutional approaches. At the same time, Adams refused to support Jefferson’s candidacy, despite their former close relationship, as he believed that the will of the people had spoken, and he had lost; therefore, the incumbent president should not be involved in the process. This selfless decision preserved the constitution’s sanctity and set the precedent of the peaceful transition of power between opposing political parties. Chervinsky observes that previous historians have not credited Adams for this stance, as peaceful presidential transitions were not an issue before January 6, 2021.

Chervinsky argues convincingly that John Adams’ presidential contributions should boost his place in history. Although not perfect, the principled president believed in doing what he thought was best for the country, regardless of the political cost. Historians often describe Adams as vain, stubborn, and self-centered, or mock him as a closet monarchist or “Mr. Rotundity.” In contrast, George Washington is often seen as the “indispensable man.”[ii] Readers of Making the Presidency will gain a more positive perspective on Adams’ time in office, thereby elevating its importance to match his revolutionary leadership. Perhaps Adams, despite losing the election, was also an indispensable figure, safeguarding the Constitution and keeping the country together during the nation’s first electoral crisis.

---

[i] U.S. Presidents Historical Rankings. Siena College Research Institute. 2022. https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/

[ii] James Thomas Flexner, Washington The Indispensable Man (New York: Mentor, 1969).