Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman, by Robert K. Massie

Today I'm looking at a biography of Catherine the Great, by far the most powerful and influential female ruler of the eighteenth century. Catherine was born a minor German princess with only the opportunities presented by marriage to improve her lot and satisfy her own ambitions. Married to the heir of the Russian Empire, Catherine embraced her adopted country including its language and religion, earning the respect and admiration of the Russian people. Just three months into her husband Peter's reign, members of the Russian nobility and army gathered around Catherine and supported her coup, establishing her as tsarina of Russia in her own right, and she ruled for over thirty years.

Like all historical figures, Catherine is complicated and not wholly good or bad as a person. In her younger years Catherine embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment and the theory of enlightened despotism, and Catherine actually sought to reform Russia's legal system as well as entertained ideas about the gradual abolition of serfdom. However as Catherine got older, dealt with the frustrations of running Russia, and witnessed the bloody beginnings of the French Revolution, Catherine became increasingly conservative and an even strong proponent of absolute monarchies. The result is a woman as complex as any other person in history.

Overall I think this biography was very good. Catherine was engaged in correspondence with many people at the time so we have a large number of primary sources to draw upon for research and Massie makes use of that. Not only Catherine's own correspondence, but writings from figures such as Voltaire, Frederick the Great, Diderot, and foreign ambassadors to Russia. We get an intimate look at Catherine and her life not only as a monarch but also as a person.

This book does spend considerable time talking about people and subjects other than Catherine, if only to provide necessary context. I remember there were rather lengthy bits talking about the life of her husband, Peter, and the French Revolution just to name a couple topics. Although this does take us away from the narrative of Catherine and her life story, I feel like Massie does make them tie to the life of Catherine so they feel relevant rather than additional information to pad out the book.

Overall I thought this biography was fairly well done. It criticizes Catherine, perhaps a little unfairly when it comes to her lovers, but it doesn't become too hagiographic in its praise either. What we see is a woman, trying to do the best for her country in the eighteenth century. She isn't always successful, but she tries pretty hard and definitely seems worthy of the moniker ''the Great''. If you're looking to learn more about Russian history or Catherine in specific (especially after watching the Extra History videos about Catherine) this is definitely a good book to read.

- Kalpar

Jefferson and Hamilton, by John Ferling

Today I'm looking at a history book about two major figures in the early history of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Both individuals came from very different backgrounds and had very different visions for what the American republic would look like and their legacies are mixed. Hamilton helped craft the fiscal organs that allowed the United States to become the economic superpower of the world, although with wealth and power being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Jefferson was an outspoken proponent of egalitarianism and an agrarian lifestyle where all men could be free and independent, which becomes much more ironic considering Jefferson's membership in the wealthy and powerful planter class of Virginia and reliance on slave labor to maintain his lifestyle. Neither man was perfect, despite hagiographic attempts by many, but their continued influence on the United States is remarkable.

What I found most interesting about this book was Ferling's decision to focus less on Jefferson and Hamilton's debate over the power of the central government, which is what I'm far more familiar with in the classes I've taken. The crises of the American Revolution and the inability of Congress to pay or equip its army taught Hamilton the necessity of a strong central government with the ability to fund and raise armies, as well as financial institutions and other networks to create a rich and strong United States. Jefferson, by contrast, supported a far more limited view of centralized government and, with James Madison, began putting forth ideas which would lead to the doctrine of state nullification and eventually the crisis of the American Civil War. I generally fall on the side of Alexander Hamilton in this argument, and I freely admit that it's largely because I have the benefit of hindsight and knowing where the doctrine of limited government ultimately leads.

But this did lead to some confusion on my part in the very beginning of the book when Ferling explained the devotion of Republicans to Hamilton and Democrats to Jefferson, even in modern times. Especially after the great shift in politics around the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, Democrats have increasingly become proponents of the strength of the federal government and its ability to improve life for Americans, while Republicans have increasingly become proponents of limited government. Ferling manages to make a much more cohesive argument by focusing less on Hamilton and Jefferson's respective policies on central government and more on individual freedom.

There is a certain amount of irony in the positions that both Hamilton and Jefferson ended up taking on personal liberty in their lifetimes. Hamilton was born out of wedlock and poor in the Caribbean islands. He worked for a few years at a merchant firm but his intellectual curiosity convinced a number of prominent citizens on the island to sponsor his education at university on the mainland. Hamilton spent many years working as Washington's aide-de-campe, entered legal practice, and managed to join the elites of American society. Over his lifetime, however, Ferling shows how Hamilton became increasingly reactionary and distrustful of common people and democracy. Hamilton was definitely behind the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which effectively gutted the First Amendment. So Hamilton, who benefitted greatly from upward social mobility, wanted to prevent that same upward mobility for other people.

Jefferson, by contrast, was a son of privilege and was from the very aristocratic classes which Hamilton aspired to join. But Jefferson, at least as Ferling argues, was a very strong proponent of democracy and liberty. Ferling exhibits how through his entire career Jefferson was extremely interested in land reform and creating a society of independent yeoman farmers. Over the years Jefferson embraced the democratic spirit and reveled in the abandoning of pomp and ritual in American society and the creation of a more egalitarian society. It certainly seems odd that Jefferson,  a member of the aristocracy himself, would welcome the breaking of aristocratic power and the increased democratization of the United States.

Looking at Hamilton and Jefferson through these lenses, the respective parties adoration for these figures makes much more sense. The Republicans, not entirely unfairly, have been seen as allied with the wealthier segments of the American population while the Democrats are more strongly allied with the poorer segments of the population. If we view Hamilton and Jefferson on a rich vs. poor scale than a strong authority vs. weak authority then the allegiances of modern political parties to their ''founding fathers'' makes a lot more sense.

My biggest concern with this book is that Ferling feels a little too hagiographic of Jefferson, although that may be some of my deep-seated distrust of Jefferson because of where the weak central authority argument leads. (As well as my preference for an industrialized economy over an agrarian. I am an urban dweller.) Ferling himself says in the beginning that he didn't care terribly much for Alexander Hamilton when he started on this project and came to respect him more as he did research. But that does make me concerned because Ferling seems much more forgiving of Jefferson's faults than he is of Hamilton's. Ferling does seem to dance around Jefferson and his position on slavery, which is definitely one of his greater foibles.

Despite my reservations I think this is a pretty good biography of both Jefferson and Hamilton. The book ends rather abruptly in 1804 when Hamilton is killed by Burr in their famous duel, and the last twenty-two years of Jefferson's life are briefly glossed over, so I think it's a little inadequate as a biography for both men. However, it's definitely a good look at political and economic thought in the United States during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. But if you want more detailed information on both men, I'd recommend reading additional biographies.

- Kalpar

1776, by David McCullough

This week I'm reviewing another book from David McCullough and in the front matter the author actually states he meant this book to be a sort of supplement to his biography of John Adams, which I talked about here. And I will say that this book definitely feels like a supplement rather than a full text in its own right. The subject matter is a chronological history starting with King George III's declaration to Parliament in October of 1775 that the colonies were officially considered to be in rebellion and a resounding vote approving necessary war measures. The book then follows the military struggles of both the Americans under George Washington and the British under William Howe. The book wraps up with Washington's victories at Trenton and Princeton in late December and early January of 1777, affirming that this war, like so many others, would not be a quick and easy victory for either side but drag on for many years.

The focus, as I mentioned, is largely on the military campaigns of 1776. The Declaration of Independence and the Continental Congress's deliberations, as well as the deliberations in Parliament and the opposition to Lord North's war policy, are mentioned in passing but do not receive a tenth of the focus that Washington, Howe, and their armies receive. So in that way I can see how this book is more of a supplement than a full text in its own right. It seems to me that while he was performing research for his biography on John Adams, McCullough probably came across quite a lot of research material, especially with the Siege of Boston in late 1775 and early 1776 near Adams's home in Braintree. However as it doesn't really fit with the narrative of Adams's life, him being occupied with a variety of other things at the time, if McCullough wanted to talk about it he had to create another book.

By focusing on just the military campaigns, especially the northern campaign, McCullough keeps the focus extremely narrow. Clinton's failed expedition to South Carolina is mentioned, but only in passing and not in any great detail. On the one hand this is very good because it keeps the narrative tight and focused without branching out into too many things and trying to do too much in too little space. But on the other hand, it feels kind of odd to keep the focus so narrow and almost ignore so many other things happening during such an auspicious year for Americans. If you want a text that goes into great detail about the northern campaigns of the American Revolution in 1776, then this is an excellent text for that. Otherwise most things fall outside of its purview.

A few of the primary sources utilized by McCullough I was already familiar with, having encountered them in Chernow's Washington: A Life and the events were familiar to me from that text as well. The book talks about Washington assuming command in late 1775 of the American forces entrenched around Boston and keeping the British bottled up, and Henry Knox's amazing achievement of hauling cannon from Fort Ticonderoga hundreds of miles in the dead of winter to fortify high ground outside Boston overnight. The British had already been planning to leave Boston, but the arrival of Knox's artillery made Howe's mind for him and the British were forced to retreat to Nova Scotia. The success of Boston was to be short lived and Washington soon had his army on the march for New York City, correctly assuming it would be the target of the next British attack. What follows is the disasters of Long Island and Brooklyn, Washington's miraculous but ignomious retreat across the East River, and the eventual loss of New York to the British followed by the disasters of Forts Lee and Washington on the Hudson River. Faced with criticism by his opponents and his army completely disintegrating at the end of the year, Washington gambles everything on a surprise raid at Trenton and manages to restore morale and hope to the ''Glorious Cause''.

Overall the book's pretty good, even if I found it rather short and extremely limited in its scope. As I said, if you want a book that focuses on the northern campaigns of 1776, this is a pretty good resource. Beyond that narrow focus it's very limited so you'll have to look elsewhere if you want more information on those subjects. But it's a short and informative read.

- Kalpar

Chasing Venus: The Race to Measure the Heavens, by Andrea Wulf

Today I'm taking a look at Chasing Venus, a book about the transits of Venus across the sun in the eighteenth century, which was a major astronomical event and a huge research opportunity. But I guess I should explain what a transit of Venus is. Basically once in a very long while the planet Venus comes between Earth and the Sun and so Venus can be observed travelling across the face of the sun from Earth. Due to the orbits of the respective planets involved, this always happens in pairs eight years apart, and these pairs are about a hundred odd years apart. So any astronomer lucky enough to be alive when a transit occurs will do almost anything to be able to observe one. (Also sorry everyone, the last ones happened in 2004 and 2012. We won't see another one until 2117.)

But why is this a big deal, and specifically why were the transits in 1761 and 1769 such a big deal? Well as Wulf explains you have to put everything into the proper context. The transits of Venus in the eighteenth century were smack dab in the middle of the Enlightenment era, where Europeans were sailing across the world, meeting new and interesting people, stealing their countries, and making breakthroughs in science including astronomy. Astronomy was particularly important because ocean navigation was incredibly tied up with utilizing the sun, moon, and stars to help find latitude. Longitude was somewhat trickier and would remain a problem, but scientists were busily working on that all through the 1700's. The transit of Venus across the Sun was simply one in a large number of astronomical events astronomers were eager to observe.

However, the transit was also important because astronomers could use it to calculate just how big the solar system was. Astronomers had already crunched the numbers and had a pretty good idea on the relative distances between the planets, measured in Astronomical Units (AU) which was defined as the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The problem, however, was nobody had more than a rough guess of exactly how bit an AU was. But astronomers knew if they took a variety of measurements of the transit and did some insane trigonometry, they might be able to get a better idea.

The chief challenge was getting astronomers in locations where they'd be able to make observations. Some locations, such as upper Scandinavia, were fairly close but still very difficult to get to. Other locations such as Siberia, Canada, India, St. Helena, and Tahiti were far more remote but observations from these locations would be absolutely essential if scientists were to determine the distance between the Earth and the Sun. And the amazing thing? They actually managed to do it.

There were numerous obstacles to this endeavor, as Wulf points out in her book. The first problem was getting scientists from all across Europe to cooperate in taking measurements and sharing their research data. (Although that was fairly simple by comparison, and I'll go more into that in a minute.) Furthermore astronomers had to go to remote locations, with complex and delicate instruments like telescopes, barometers, chronometers, and quadrants, all across the world and then take accurate measurements. Numerous astronomers actually died on their expeditions and in some cases it's amazing we got any results at all. It's truly a testament to human endeavor that scientists were able to work together in a great scientific cause.

The biggest problem I have with this book, though, is I feel like Wulf misrepresents the context of the eighteenth century. A very big deal is made of the Seven Year's War which hampered expeditions for the 1761 transit, especially between British and French scientists. Certainly the rivalry between Britain and France was deep rooted, by the competition in the eighteenth century was hardly ideological. The eighteenth century after all is the era of ''gentlemanly'' warfare, where today's enemy could be tomorrow's ally. After all, the British-French and Austrian-Prussian rivalries switched partners between the War of Austrian Succession (France and Prussia vs. Austria and Britain) and the Seven Year's War (Britain and Prussia vs. Austria and France.) So I don't think it should come as any surprise that European scientists were able to put national identities aside in the pursuit of a greater cause.

I think Wulf also could have done a better job of talking about how nations lavished funds on their scientific societies during the eighteenth century as well. Aside from their more practical benefits, scientific societies were a matter of prestige for a modern ''enlightened'' state. Wulf does a good job of explaining how Catherine the Great of Russia and the American colonies worked to promote their own scientific societies to prove they were not provincial backwaters but rather members of the club of ''civilized'' nations. The fact that great sums of money were spent by monarchs on scientific expeditions at this time should hardly come as a surprise. It was simply a matter of national honor and prestige to have a good scientific society. Much like how in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it became a matter of national honor and prestige to have colonies and battleships. I think Wulf makes the decision to fund these expeditions far more incredible than it is if you look at the historical context.

Overall this book is okay. Personally I actually found it a little boring but I think that may have just been the reader who didn't seem to get terribly excited by anything happening in the book. It was all delivered in a rather flat monotone. If you're interested in astronomy this may be a good book to read, but I can't find anything really compelling about it.

- Kalpar

Washington: A Life, by Ron Chernow

This week I'm reviewing the first of what I suspect will be many biographies to be featured here on the Tuesday slot. Although yes, The Secret History of Wonder Woman was vaguely biographical, but in this case it's a biography of one person in specific, our illustrious commander in chief and first president, George Washington. This particular book, as Chernow outlines in the introduction, is intended to be a cradle-to-grave narrative about the life of George Washington. Perhaps more importantly, Chernow utilizes the voluminous personal papers of Washington, expressly saved for the benefit of posterity, to peel away the holy facade that has built up around Washington in the past two centuries. The trouble with talking about George Washington is that even within his own lifetime Washington developed a larger-than-life reputation and has become almost a secular civic deity of the United States. One of the fifty states is named after him, as is the nation's capital city, and numerous counties, streets, parks, and high schools. No other figure in American history, save perhaps Abraham Lincoln, has become so enshrined in the popular consciousness. Chernow's task, therefore, is to reveal the deeply flawed human being that was Washington of historical fact rather than the demigod Washington of legend. Certainly this is no small task, but it is a vital one.
One of the things that first struck me was how much Washington was a beneficiary of privilege in his early years, which helped to launch his later successes. Washington was the son of a wealthy Virginia planter and although he lost his father at the age of eleven, Washington ended up inheriting a small amount of land and a handful of slaves. Despite not having the benefit of a college education, Washington was guided by his older half-brothers, especially Lawrence, and was introduced to the upper echelons of Virginia society including the Fairfax family of Fairfax county with Colonel Fairfax being highly influential in getting Washington some of his first military commissions and surveying assignments. Furthermore, although Washington suffered the repeated tragedy of the deaths of family members (a fairly common occurrence in the eighteenth century in general and in the southern colonies in specific), he also inherited large amounts of land and slaves from his relatives, including the now iconic plantation estate of Mount Vernon.

And yet, despite his extensive land holdings and other advantages, Washington was often in dire economic straits, much like fellow Virginia planter Thomas Jefferson, although the two could be hardly any different in temperament. Washington was extremely diligent, refusing to waste an hour of the day and driven by an industrious work ethic. Jefferson, at least as he's traditionally portrayed, was a far more relaxed individual and although he kept account books nearly as meticulous as Washington, he made hardly any effort to pay off his accumulated debts compared to Washington. And what is perhaps more interesting to me is Chernow intimates that this was a condition far more common among the landed aristocracy. With easy credit extended to them by London merchants, many Virginia planters would indulge in the most luxurious items that could be ordered from England in displays of conspicuous consumption, advertising to the world their success as farmers and utter lack of concern with such idle affairs as mere money. Inevitably Washington and other planters would drive themselves into debt with their extravagant purchases, but find themselves utterly powerless to economize for to cease purchasing luxury goods would be to announce to the world that you had fallen on hard times and result in a catastrophic loss of social status. For whatever reason I find this entire situation of land-rich and money-poor wannabe aristocrats fascinating, if somewhat abhorrent as the entire system was built upon the backs of slave labor.

Another one of the things that Chernow disassembles in his work is the stoic calm of Washington which we often associate with him in our popular consciousness. As has been jokingly remarked, we cannot imagine George Washington naked. And certainly this is largely a result of design on Washington's part. Washington was enamored with the philosophy of the Roman stoics and always sought to project an aura of calm and cool detachment. Washington very rarely showed emotion in public, always striving to maintain a facade of propriety and this is the image that has been passed down in the popular imagination. However for Washington's circle of intimates, a very small circle of people, a variety of emotions could be displayed. Washington was no stranger to personal tragedy and let those emotions show sometimes, but he also laughed heartily at bawdy jokes as much as the next person. However, the emotion Chernow states Washington experienced the most, and is most commented upon by his circle of intimates, was wrath. Whether it was sullen resentment at the patronizing treatment Washington received at the hands of Englishmen from the Mother Country, or the sheer mind-numbing frustration of trying to keep the Continental Army together, Washington seemed to carry an internal rage with him all his life that occasionally exploded in fits of apoplectic fury. Certainly a far cry from the perpetually calm and collected Washington of legend.

Even Washington's military career is not above reproach, although many more historians have already commented on his service extensively. Upon becoming Commander in Chief in 1775, Washington was certainly not a professional soldier. His experience in the French and Indian War was fairly limited and left him insufficiently prepared for the challenges of command. Looking at Washington's battlefield record alone he's a middling general at best. His attacks at Princeton and Trenton were audacious and extremely successful, but could have ended as badly as his equally audacious plan at Germantown. Yorktown, his other great victory, was accomplished through the help of a French squadron and French engineers, which would have made a siege impossible otherwise. So it is certainly not as a battlefield tactician where Washington deserves praise. However, as Chernow makes abundantly clear, Washington faced considerable challenges just keeping the Continental Army together, sometimes through sheer force of will alone. The Continental Army often lacked sufficient food, clothing, shelter, gunpowder, or even weapons, and Congress was often several months in arrears in regards to pay as well. Compounding this problem was the practice of enlistments of only one year, which resulted in Washington and his officers spending half the year training their men into effective fighters, only to watch these men go back home and start the process of training raw recruits all over again. The fact that a Continental Army existed at all during the years of the Revolution and didn't melt away in the face of such challenges is a testament to Washington's determination and leadership.

Washington's tenure as president was no less challenging than his stint as Commander in Chief. Although beginning with a team of some of the brightest minds in the United States, including Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, Washington's administration began to divide along differing interpretations of the Constitution, eventually coalescing into the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. For his first term, the infighting remained fairly civil and restrained, but Washington's health suffered greatly and he had to undergo at least two operations to remove tumors from his thigh. Despite his hopes that the new federal government would soon be established and he could retire to Mount Vernon in two years, Washington's sense of duty called him to serve a second term. The resentments and differences that had been boiling eventually spilled over into open fighting through newspaper proxies and even Washington, who tried to remain above party politics, was slandered and assaulted in newspapers, no longer a figure above criticism. With the resignation of his cabinet officers, Washington had to make do with less talented individuals, providing further fuel for his critics, and by the end of his second term Washington was utterly exhausted. It's hardly surprising that Washington gladly left for what he believed was a well-deserved retirement to Mount Vernon.

No biography of Washington would be truly complete without taking a critical view of his involvement with slavery, something which is usually glossed over or even euphemistically omitted from the more hagiographic biographies. By the time of his death Washington was responsible for over three hundred slaves, about half of whom were dower slaves and legally the property of Martha, who would revert to the ownership of the Custis family upon her death. The other half were slaves which Washington owned outright, and would become a problem that would vex him off and on for years. There is of course, a certain irony in Washington being a proponent of liberty and the equality of man while at the same time owning some hundred and fifty people as property. Washington also sought to get as much work as possible from his slaves, exhorting them to greater efforts even when he took time for relaxation and amusements. George and Martha seemed to remain for their entire lives utterly oblivious as to why slaves would not be motivated to work hard and felt equally baffled and betrayed whenever ''well behaved'' slaves ran away. At the same time Washington seemed vaguely aware of the unsavory moral character of slavery and, to some extent, bothered by it, trying to keep ads for fugitive slaves as discreet as possible and striving to avoid breaking up slave families. But Washington also had practical, economic reasons to dislike slavery. Constantly strapped for cash, Washington calculated that the amount of upkeep spent on his slaves, such as food and clothing, was insufficient to the amount of work he managed to get out of them, especially when including slaves to young, old, or sick to do any meaningful work. Mount Vernon ultimately had far more slaves than Washington could gainfully employ and so manumission seemed the best option for him, both morally and economically. Of course, he only decided to manumit his slaves after the death of both himself and his wife, and this was only done for the slaves he owned outright, Martha Washington's dower slaves reverting to the Custis estate upon her death. It certainly was not an area of moral strength for Washington.

Overall, this biography is rather interesting because Chernow goes into such great detail to show  Washington as a real person instead of the demigod of American legend. Towards the end of the book Chernow slips a little back into the awed reverence which Washington more frequently receives, but for the most part he takes a far more critical view. It certainly expanded my knowledge of Washington as the man he was and removes quite a bit of the mystique he's developed over the past two hundred years. The version that I listened to was read by Scott Brick which was adequate, but nothing exceptional as far as I can tell. If you're looking for an in-depth Washington biography, this seems to be an excellent choice.

John Adams, by David McCullough

In a continuation of my quest to expand my knowledge, this week I'm reviewing the widely-acclaimed biography of John Adams by Davide McCullough. This text focuses on Adams's life, starting with his early years and entry to Harvard at age fifteen, to his eventual death on July 4th, 1826, the same day as Thomas Jefferson and the fiftieth birthday of the United States. Fortunately for historians Adams was a prolific writer during his lifetime, engaged not only in correspondence with dozens of people over the years but also writer of a handful of essays and pamphlets and a regular diarist. This provides a great amount of insight into Adams's own thoughts, feelings, and motivations, as well as how other people perceived him in their own writings. Although by no means the final word on John Adams, it provides a very good look into one of the oft overlooked founding fathers.

John Adams has often been overlooked in American history, and no one was more aware of this fact than John Adams. And I suspect part of it was the fact that Adams is, in a way, rather boring. He doesn't have the wit, charm, and skill with the ladies like Benjamin Franklin. He doesn't have the imposing stature and dignity of George Washington (Although Adams certainly shared Washington's reputation for honor and integrity.) And he doesn't have the reclusive genius of Thomas Jefferson. Adams is described consistently in this book, as well as in the writings of his contemporaries, as a man of integrity; who's candid, forthright, honest, and reliable. Practically the very epitome of New England Puritan virtue. And I personally rather like those virtues in a person and find them something to aspire towards, but it certainly doesn't make for interesting copy. Adams is simply overshadowed by the more colorful characters that inhabited the same time period as himself and so definitely merits reappraisal.

I will say that this biography paints Adams in very glowing terms, and there definitely seems to be a lot to admire, such as his aforementioned virtues, but it makes me wonder how much this should be taken with a grain of salt. There are numerous points where McCullough makes a point to talk about how exceptional or, in many cases, self-sacrificing Adams's behavior has been. McCullough exults in Adams's eight years and thousands of miles travelled in Europe calling upon the governments of France, the Netherlands, and England as an emissary of the United States, as well as his years of painful separation from his wife Abigail. Although other figures such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had to suffer separations from loved ones as well as difficulties in Europe. Adams's efforts in supporting the Declaration of Independence, his drafting of the Massachusetts state constitution, and his service as the first Vice President of the United States are all given glowing reports from McCullough. To be fair, Adams doesn't get terribly much praise for these efforts as part of his overall neglect in history, but I feel sometimes that McCullough was laying it on a little thick, as if to make up for all the decades of neglect. And considering McCullough's criticism of other figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, it almost feels like McCullough is on Adams's side.

Thomas Jefferson specifically plays a large part in this book, which is reasonable considering his friendship, then enmity, then friendship with Adams over the years. McCullough even talks about the contrasts between the two men, such as Jefferson living off the backs of slave labor while isolated at his mountaintop villa, while Adams works on his own farm surrounded by family and neighbors in the small-town spirit of New England. Considerable focus is spent on Jefferson's habit of rebuilding practically any structure he inhabited, usually at great personal expense, which contributed to Jefferson's eventual bankruptcy by the time of his death. By contrast Adams wholeheartedly embraces the Puritan ideals of thrift and independence and remains fiscally solvent for most of his life, despite considerable fiscal pressures. I feel like McCullough almost goes a little too far in building up Adams and tearing down Jefferson as a biographer, and I'm not a terribly big fan of Jefferson in the first place.

I'm also interested in trying to read more about Alexander Hamilton, who plays a large role during Adams's Vice Presidency and Presidency and certainly was no friend to either John or Abigail. In this book he's portrayed as the consummate power-hungry schemer with almost imperial ambitions for America. Personally I don't know terribly much about Hamilton beyond his advocacy for a strong central government and a national bank, both measures I find to be rather reasonable. (I'll admit it, I'm a Federalist.) So to see this more ambitious side of Hamilton is a bit of a surprise and it makes me curious to say the least.

Ultimately I feel like this is a fairly good biography, if nothing else then because it educates people about one of our more-overlooked presidents and Founding Fathers. It is a little effusive in its praise so reading of different sources for more information on this subject material is probably a good idea as well.

- Kalpar