A famous lawyer from Massachusetts, John Adams was one of the originals who led the initial charge and push for American Independence; largely due to his loud, brash, and booming personality. Which was quite contrary to the likes of the previous persons featured, President Washington and President Jefferson. Still, his passionate mind helped to convince America and her delegates to fight for a free nation. Surely by his experience and account, there is much to be learned and gained from the source of his words.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
Adams’ Argument for the Defense, December, 1770.
A quote such as this relates in great stride to not only our modern political environment but also by the very time in which it was spoken. Specifically, I refer to the Federalist Papers contrived by some of the very colleagues and associates who helped to build America into what it has become. Publius, through a varying range of papers, often illustrates the fundamental fatality that is a legislature corrupted by passion. It is specifically in the Federalist Papers No. 62 and No. 63, that the somewhat unknown author (as in if it was Hamilton or Madison who wrote them) illustrates the point of the Senate; being a body of men who are less likely to be persuaded by the impulses of passion and emotion. While the condition of the philosophy, idea of truth, and passion that is shared may be of difference, they still resonate the same.
Yes, Adam’s quote comes from the defense of British regulars and officers involved in the Boston Massacre, but it still relates to the core principles of America. That law and facts should preside above all else. While perhaps somewhat childish in nature, but rooted in truth, is the common adage of often Conservatives and Republicans: “Facts don’t care about your feelings”. While this is, and has turned into, along the lines of political proponent and attack, the saying popularized by Ben Shapiro holds merit.
The evidence to this conclusion is stated within the aforementioned quote; howbeit, simply rewritten to an undeniably worse eloquence.
Of the many correspondents by Adams’ hand, perhaps his most famous are the many letters he wrote to his wife, Abigail. These have served to be a most resourceful and fruitful well of knowledge to look into the more personal side of John Adams; like many of the letters of other Founding Fathers. It is within one such letter that a particular quote stands out. One which relates so significantly to any time.
I read my eyes out, and can’t read half enough neither. The more one reads the more one sees We have to read.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, December 28, 1794.
The love Adams held to read and educate himself, whether for his children, his brethren, or himself, is quite clear. Though, in this quote, we are faced with a truth; that by opening our eyes and minds to literature, we begin to notice the never-ending world that it exists within. Thirst for knowledge becomes first and foremost in the want and schedule of time.
It is also through this quest for knowledge that the American Republic must exist. For, as Washington and many others agreed, the people must be educated. John Adams felt no different.
And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.
John Adams, “Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,” 1765
Our current government seems hellbent on covering up mistakes, criminal cases, treason, governmental wrongdoings, and more. For John Adams, this would be a terrible awakening should he reside in our time. In this dissertation, he continues to suggest that whenever the people are misguided in their trust of the government, or their “rulers”, through the betrayal of transparency, it is then the right of the people should they “revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed…” and to replace those rulers. It would seem in our current climate of political dialogue and legislative condition, we are numb to such a lack of transparency. We excuse and assume acceptance whenever Congress or federal agencies outright lie to the American people and cover up important information. Worst of all is the stigma and actual condition of being considered a conspiracy theorist if you are to simply question or mention such a statement.
The Covid years are a perfect example of complacency and the lack of candor within both the civil and governmental world. To suggest that Covid came from a lab in Wuhan, China, was to be an extremist remark. A conspiracy only suggested and pushed by right-wing xenophobes and racists. Yet just after the pandemic was largely considered over and finished (at least for ordinary folks), the FBI, amongst others, came to support such a conclusion, which was previously considered crazy by the media, government, and large portion of civilians; with no apology attached.
The importance of transparency and therefore knowledge by the procurement thereof is essential to liberty. Hence the First Amendment.
At the time of writing this, the Legislature and Executor are orchestrating a deal of compromise to push and sort out the issue of debt in America. Regardless of that situation, it still brings relevant conversation to the philosophy behind the most major and consistent mode of politics in the two bodies of Congress: the middle way.
John Adams felt very strongly about “the middle way”; so much, indeed, that he could be labeled an extremist. It was his fear that the middle way would find America in a short dying breath from the struggles with Great Britain as unwavering support would never be granted to the many militias during the days preceding the Declaration of Independence.
I agree with you, that in Politiks the Middle Way is none at all. If We finally fail in this great and glorious Contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping after this middle Way.
From John Adams to Horatio Gates, 23 March 1776
While compromise can be noble and ultimately good, there is a time and limit to all. Moderation is always key. Knowing when the middle way can and should prevail or when it cannot is so crucial to good politics and governing. In the case of Adams’ situation, this was one of no alternative. It was either fight or die. Should the Thirteen Colonies not commit, then Massachusetts would fall by the lack of support and strength of weakness.
In many regards, this can be greatly related to the modern conflicts of war around the world; specifically, America’s part within such conflicts. Vietnam, for example, was such a war that had no place in being waged. All things considered, the debate on whether or not to have started a war in the first place is largely irrelevant once it has begun. The only question that remains is how to exit war. There are only two real answers: be victorious or withdraw. It is in this conclusion that Adams speaks from the grave. To wage a war of “the middle way” did not serve America at all during Vietnam. Rather, it sent the blood of America’s sons and patriots to soak into the paddy fields of a country thousands of miles away. And for what? what was truly accomplished?
Though, perhaps it is my own naivety that wishes warfare could be simpler. It would seem diplomacy and “the middle way” is often the sure method of reason in squashing and quelling world disputes; but at what cost and what limit?
It is no secret the length and enormous depth one could study the work and life of John Adams. While there are many a quote and word to be read by this Founding Father, it only takes a few to understand the genius and patriotism behind them.