"John Adams" book review

Last year, on my summer vacation I read “American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson” by Joseph Ellis. It was a biography of the “Sage of Monticello” that dissected not so much the politics or history of the man but his seemingly bipolar personality. It discussed at length how often he would say one thing and then do another as it suited his purposes. And while the book went forward at a good clip and was insightful and entertaining, the more I read the less I cared for Jefferson and the more I came to like his friend and sometimes political rival John Adams.

That’s why a month ago I picked up a copy of “John Adams” by David McCullough. It is a monster biography (Over 600 pages) that covers Adams’ life from cradle to grave by using personal papers and letters written by Adams, his wife Abigail, their children, friends and relatives. Through McCullough’s work I found that John Adams was a giant of the revolutionary age who did so much in service of his country and was so prolific in his writings both personal and public that a couple of hundred pages could NEVER contain him.

Yet, despite the prolific nature of the man and his family, Adams is one of those figures who get glossed over in history class. Very little attention is paid to him in textbooks. They might say he was a signer of the declaration. They might say he was President for a while. But other than that, Adams is a largely forgotten figure of history for the average student. In fact, even after having grown up in his home state of Massachusetts’, I knew very little about him. I am ashamed to admit that a lot of what I knew was gained in a classroom viewing of “1776: The Musical” in Miss Olsen’s 8th Grade History class in Billerica, MA. (I’m not kidding.)

This book gave me an acute lesson in Adams that was fascinating. There are so many things I didn’t know about the man as to be laughable. I didn’t know he was the lawyer who defended the British Soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre. I didn’t know it was Adams who got the funding and oversaw the building of our first Navy. I didn’t know that after being an ambassador to France, he left on his own (that is without approval of congress) and went to Holland to secure much needed loans from the Dutch. I didn’t know that after the war he had been minister to the court of St. James (England) even after having been marked for hanging during the revolution. There were many surprising turns of events in Adams’ life that while wholly remarkable and noteworthy are nonetheless seldom studied by the average survey of American History classes.

But the real surprise in the book was his wife, Abigail Adams.

I had never thought or heard much about Abigail Adams. In a sense, I knew they were a power couple (I got that from the musical). What I did not know was in how many ways and on how many topics Abigail was the perfect complement to John himself. In a time when women were largely overlooked by society, she carried on the business of the household while John spent his time away on the nation’s business. And when she went to Europe during John’s ambassadorships, her keen insights on people and steadying influence on his humor helped John accomplish great things for the fledgling United States. All through their life together she was an island of tranquility in the chaotic seas of early American independence.

And she was no less prolific a writer than John and in some ways more valuable. All through the book, in quotations pulled from the myriad letters McCullough used for research, Abigail offered the most insight into John and the American people’s states of mind in ways that her husband could not. An astute observer, opinionated, pioneering, well read, well mannered, steadfast, and hearty Abigail maintained relationships with her husband, siblings, parents and children for many years with a prolific outpouring of letters to all of them. And as if that weren’t enough she corresponded with several of the prominent names of history including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush. In short, Abigail Adams was a remarkable woman who deserves much more acknowledgement than she has received over the years.

I won’t bore you further with my version of the details of the Adams’ life. McCullough does a much better job than I ever could of revealing who they were. And that’s part of the reason this book won the Pulitzer Prize. McCullough has an easy way with words while being thorough in detail, a combination of traits that historical writers seldom seem to have. His writing is easy going almost to the point of being conversational in tone and conveys the mood of the situation about which he is writing better than any current writer (non-fiction or fiction) that I can name.

I very much liked this book and recommend it to anyone looking to gain insight into this country’s founding, one of our greatest founding fathers or just daily life in that period of history.

5 Stars out of 5.

Health Care and National Defense

Everywhere on television, I keep hearing bad news about the health care bill. I see where the Heritage Foundation says the Health bill will double the national deficit and drive our debt up by huge numbers. I also see where people are bemoaning the fate of insurance companies as the new government system will cripple the existing systems. This bill is also almost guaranteed to break the back of an already ailing American economy as businesses close, doctors run for the hills and health care tanks. I agree with 100% of those assessments of this bill.

But I haven’t heard anyone else mention one of my concerns… I think this bill and its subsequent economic effect is a risk to our national defense.

Nobody likes to talk about National Defense anymore. We have the greatest military in the world right now. No one, the world over, doubts that. Current thinking says there is no one who is militarily a serious threat to us anymore. Not even the Chinese with their HUGE standing army doubt our military abilities. But having the greatest military in the world requires funding on par with the greatest military in the world and with budget deficits reaching the trillions, the debt soaring through the double digit trillions… we will NOT be able to sustain that for much longer.

How long before we can no longer maintain our national defense program and its networks of intelligence and early warning? There is precedence for this question. What I am describing happened at the end of the cold war as funding was drastically cut across the board for intelligence and other DOD spending because there was no more Russian threat. The results were the rampant growth of terrorism with little or no warning for major attacks on US soil including 09/11.

How long before we fade out as a superpower and the world becomes increasingly unstable without the American military presence? Right now, we’re the big kid on the block. We’re the one the world can turn to when the shit hits the fan. What will happen when we can’t be global police anymore?

One lib I know said “Well, Britain used to be a world power and look at it, it is just fine.” But Britain’s power waned under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Britain ceased to be a naval power while the United States’ Navy became the predominant Navy in the world. With a connection deeply rooted in our common ancestry, the United States has basically guaranteed the safety of Britain and frankly ALL of Western Europe for 60 years. If our power fades, who will help even the odds for them? Better yet, who will do it for us?

God help the United States.

Getting God back into our government

If our country is to regain its prominence and prosperity then we the governed need to consider getting God back into our government. We should feel comfortable asking those that want to govern us what their spiritual beliefs are and to let that be a real guide as to how we choose to vote. We should feel comfortable asking about their moral beliefs. I think it’s safe to say that our govt has veered away from a moral anchor that comes from a foundation of God.

I know religion in politics is a polarizing topic but that doesn't mean it isn't an important one that shouldn't be discussed. Religion to me are your core spiritual beliefs and what guides you as to right and wrong on a moral level. Politics to me is the practical governing of the collective populous and your surroundings but for this conversation let’s say it’s our local, state, and federal govt.

Since our govt makes the laws we as a society live by, why wouldn't you want those people in govt to make those laws based on their moral beliefs? Before you say because those in govt are worthless pieces of crap remember that you elected them to be there! Think about that the next time you go to vote.

Religion always has and always should be in the practical governing of this country. This country was formed because of people looking for religious freedom. There is no way to separate religion and politics, nor should it be attempted. There is NOTHING in our founding documents stating we should not have religion in politics. It does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof...” What I read there is that the govt can’t adopt an official religious denomination but I also read that there is total freedom to draw strength and guidance from it as well. We are governed by our peers in a representative form and since that be the case we can’t ask those that govern us to not draw their opinions from their religious (moral) beliefs.

Laws should be based in morality. We create laws to protect each other and to maintain civility. It is morally wrong to kill someone so we make laws against murder. It's morally wrong to be a thief so we make laws against stealing. The point is we govern ourselves based on our collective perception of right and wrong. That perception is formed from our beliefs. One of the primary ways we gain our beliefs is from our religion. Since the majority of the people in this country claim a Christian faith it is only natural that the law of the land would be influenced by Christianity. To ignore religion in the process of making laws is not realistic. I dare say it's not ethical to do so either.

If a politician can leave his/her religion at the door when he enters congress, White House, etc, then I certainly don't want anything to do with them. If they can check their morality at the door then that means they will have the ability and inclination to make immoral laws.

George Washington had two quotes that seem to speak to this quite well. They are “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” and the other is “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

Ask yourself if those that we have elected govern us with God or the Bible... If the answer is no maybe we should change who's governing us?

The Sharon Statement of 1960

(This was "Adopted in Conference, at Sharon, Connecticut, on September 11, 1960." by William F Buckley and others. I changed 1 word...from international to domestic. It is amazing how much of this still applies 50 years later.)

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

WE, as young conservatives believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…

THAT the forces of domestic Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

Jim Bunning: None In, None Left On

Just read this on American thinker. You need to read it, then start calling your congressional representatives and tell them to take advantage of what Jim Bunning has done for them.

Jim Bunning: None In, None Left On