American Revolution Podcast

Sunday, August 30, 2026

ARSP53 Eric Metaxas - Revolution

This text provides a summary of our Round Table discussion for August, 2026, with Michael Troy, host of the American Revolution Podcast. Our special guest is Eric Metaxas, author and the host of The Eric Metaxas Show. The conversation centers around Metaxas’s book, Revolution: The Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the World. Troy and Metaxas explore the deep ideological, legal, and spiritual origins of the American Revolution, emphasizing that the physical conflict of the war was preceded by a profound transformation in the minds of the American colonists. The discussion spans key pre-war protests, the foundational roles of both celebrated and forgotten figures, and the unique theological and intellectual currents that made self-government possible. Finally, the transcript concludes with an interactive question-and-answer session with podcast participants, which has been meticulously summarized at the end of this document.

Metaxas's Motivation and the "Generalist" Perspective

At the outset of the discussion, Michael Troy asks Metaxas about his motivation for adding another volume to the already vast library of literature surrounding the American Revolution. Metaxas frames his work by identifying himself not as an academic, but as a "generalist". He explains that academic works, while spectacular and highly useful for research, are often too narrowly focused or dense for the everyday reader. Metaxas argues that his book has "no angle" other than the core thesis that every single American needs to know the story of the American Revolution.

With the 250th anniversary of the Revolution approaching, Metaxas felt it was the perfect time to compile the entire narrative from 1761 to 1783 into a single, highly captivating, and accessible volume. His primary goal was to write a "greatest hits" book that would spark a deep, lifelong curiosity in readers, prompting them to explore academic trilogies, subscribe to historical podcasts, and "catch the bug" of revolutionary history. Metaxas expresses immense gratification that his approach has resonated with the public, noting that the book had already spent eight weeks on the New York Times bestseller list by the time of the recording.

The Spark of Rebellion: James Otis and the Writs of Assistance

A significant focal point in the early part of Metaxas's book is James Otis Jr., a figure Metaxas notes is largely underappreciated by modern Americans. In discussing Otis's importance, Metaxas points to John Adams as his narrative "Virgil" or guide through the early revolutionary landscape. John Adams was present in a Boston courtroom in 1761 when James Otis delivered his famous argument against the British Writs of Assistance. Adams vividly remembered this moment as the true opening scene of the American Revolution, famously writing that "then and there the child independence was born".

Troy and Metaxas discuss the fascinating, complex, and sometimes personal motivations that drove Otis. Troy compares Otis to "John the Baptist," a voice crying out in the wilderness to prepare the way for the next phase of history. Prior to his radicalization, Otis worked within the colonial legal system, collecting customs duties. However, after his father was rejected for a prominent job by the royal governor, Otis experienced a sharp, angry turn against the administration, transforming into a fierce advocate for colonial rights.

Troy characterizes the British failure to keep Otis on their side as a classic imperial blunder, noting that the primary goal of a colonial empire is to keep powerful, influential locals satisfied rather than crossing them. Once crossed, Otis catalyzed a political spiral that no one could have foreseen. Despite his massive early influence, Otis eventually lost his nerve and withdrew from the spotlight, fearing that the British government would target him as the legal "ringleader" of sedition and rebellion. Metaxas expresses a deep desire to have written even more about Otis, lamenting the "torture" of having to slim his original draft down from a theoretical 1,200 pages to a more manageable 600 pages.

John Adams: The Anti-Politician and Record Keeper

The conversation repeatedly returns to John Adams as a central, deeply admirable figure who was the literal "opposite of what you think of as a politician". Troy and Adams's biographers note that Adams was not a "gladhander" or a "backs slapper". He did not get along easily with people, and if he believed someone was a jerk, he would tell them so directly to their face. To illustrate this unvarnished personality, Troy shares an anecdote from a biography of Button Gwinnett. When Gwinnett first arrived in Philadelphia to join the Continental Congress, Adams immediately bypassed pleasantries, walked straight up to him, and demanded to know whether he was voting for or against independence.

Despite his abrasive public persona, Adams's extensive private records—including his letters to his wife Abigail, his diaries, and detailed meeting notes—remain an invaluable historical treasure. Metaxas highlights how hilarious and revealing Adams's raw, private observations of his fellow delegates were. For example, in his diary, Adams described Delaware delegate Caesar Rodney as the "oddest looking man" he had ever seen, with a "head no bigger than a large apple". Adams also privately mocked Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, the author of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, by sarcastically referring to him in private correspondence simply as "the farmer". It was this human, humorous, and deeply honest perspective that Metaxas made sure to preserve in his book.

The "Revolution in the Minds" and Pre-War Protests

Metaxas dedicates his first dozen chapters entirely to the events leading up to the outbreak of armed conflict in 1775. He strongly aligns with John Adams's famous assertion that there was a profound "revolution before the revolution"—a fundamental shift in the minds and hearts of the people before any blood was spilled at Lexington and Concord.

When asked to identify the single pre-war protest that set everything in motion, Metaxas points to The Stamp Act of 1765. He explains that the Stamp Act revealed the deeply principled nature of the colonial leadership, who refused to pay a tax not because of the physical monetary burden, but because they believed Parliament had no constitutional right to levy it. The resistance was intense and visceral; colonists engaged in dramatic protests, which included tearing down the houses of royal officials brick-by-brick.

Troy points out why the Stamp Act provoked such a unique reaction compared to the earlier Sugar Act. The Sugar Act was an import tariff, which was viewed as an external trade regulation and fell under a legal framework the colonists had largely tolerated. The Stamp Act, conversely, was a highly visible, direct internal tax that affected daily life. Coming at a time when James Otis’s ideas had already prepared the intellectual landscape, the Stamp Act fell on "very dry kindle" and ignited a massive, unified colonial response.

When the British government backed down and repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, the colonists celebrated as if they had won a major war, completely unaware of the decade of conflict ahead. Metaxas shares a favorite story about Paul Revere, who designed a massive, ornate celebratory wooden obelisk on the Boston Common. Covered in wax-treated canvas and illuminated internally by 280 candles, this gigantic monument unfortunately caught fire and burned to the ground during the celebrations.

The swift repeal of the Stamp Act, driven largely by British merchants suffering from colonial boycotts, taught the colonists a critical lesson: if they united, they could successfully defy Parliament. Conversely, Parliament's subsequent Declaratory Act—asserting their absolute right to tax the colonies in all cases whatsoever—served as a permanent warning to the colonists to remain continuously vigilant.

British Missteps and the Rise of Military Governance

The British administration consistently miscalculated by trying to suppress colonial coordination rather than addressing their core grievances. A prime example discussed is the Massachusetts Circular Letter of 1768, drafted by James Otis Jr. and John Adams to coordinate a unified colonial response to the Townshend Acts. When Parliament discovered the letter, they issued a heavy-handed ultimatum: the Massachusetts Assembly must rescind the letter immediately or face dissolution. In a historic act of defiance, the assembly voted 92 to 17 to refuse the order. The "Glorious 92" were instantly celebrated as heroes, and Paul Revere crafted a famous silver bowl to commemorate the vote.

By 1774, British policy shifted from passive administration to direct military coercion. Following the Boston Tea Party, General Thomas Gage was sent to Massachusetts as both the military commander and the royal governor, operating under the philosophy: "If we behave like lions, they will behave like lambs".

Gage immediately attempted to assert absolute control by moving the colonial capital out of Boston and banning local town meetings. When colonists defied his ban and held a town meeting, Gage arrested the leaders. However, his attempt to project strength backfired spectacularly when thousands of armed local militia men spontaneously marched on the jail and freed the prisoners. Gage was entirely unprepared for this level of rapid, organized, and armed civilian defiance, which demonstrated that the ideological shift in New England was already complete.

Geographic Focus and Forgotten Heroes

Troy observes that Metaxas’s book heavily emphasizes New England and the early years of the conflict, which aligns with traditional American historical memory. Metaxas agrees, explaining that while major physical battles took place in the Southern theater later in the war, New England was the true "epicenter" where the ideological divide began and the "war of ideas" was fought.

This focus also allows Metaxas to highlight the colorful, highly dramatic personal stories of individual patriots. He expresses dismay that major cultural projects, such as Ken Burns’s PBS documentary on the Revolution, relegate legendary heroes like Nathan Hale—who was executed by the British at just 21 years old—to mere seconds of coverage. Metaxas also champions the eccentric Connecticut General Israel Putnam, describing him as a wonderfully colorful and "crazy" character who once ordered his militia men to literally march chest-deep into the water to attack a British warship with muskets.

The Spiritual and Theological Roots of Liberty

A central theme of Metaxas’s work is the deep, often-overlooked religious underpinnings of the American experiment. He rejects the secular notion that the Revolution was an inevitable, purely political evolution, arguing instead that self-government was a radical, wild idea rooted in Christian theology and the Protestant Reformation.

Metaxas argues that the Great Awakening, primarily driven by the dramatic open-air preaching of George Whitefield, laid the indispensable spiritual "kindling" for the Revolution. Whitefield’s message was revolutionary: he preached that every individual could have a direct, personal relationship with God, bypassing ecclesiastical and royal hierarchies. This theological egalitarianism naturally led to the political conclusion that all human beings are equal under God, and that the King of England is not a divine sovereign.

To illustrate Whitefield's status as a saint of the revolutionary cause, Metaxas recounts an extraordinary event from 1775. Before embarking on their arduous campaign through the Maine wilderness to Canada, Benedict Arnold and his officers stopped in Newburyport, Massachusetts. They visited the church where Whitefield had preached his final sermon and was buried in a crypt beneath the altar. The officers asked the sexton to open Whitefield's coffin. Finding that his body had decayed but his clerical gown’s cuffs and collar remained intact, the officers cut the fabric into small strips to carry with them as holy relics to protect them on their military expedition.

Furthermore, Metaxas explains that the Puritans viewed their journey to America through the lens of the Sinai Covenant. They explicitly cast themselves as the biblical Israelites escaping the "Pharaoh" (King George III) to enter the wilderness and establish a society governed directly under God's sovereignty.

Even the most secular and deistically-inclined founders, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, fully embraced this cultural imagery. When tasked with designing the national seal for the new United States, Franklin proposed an image of Moses parting the Red Sea with Pharaoh's army drowning, while Jefferson proposed an image of the Israelites being guided through the wilderness by the pillar of cloud and fire.

This biblical worldview framed their understanding of human nature and governance. Because the founders held a Christian view of humanity as inherently fallen, they recognized that a society without a king required deep internal moral restraint. Both George Washington (in his Farewell Address) and John Adams argued that religion and morality were the indispensable cornerstones of a self-governing republic. Without internal spiritual discipline, a society would inevitably degenerate into chaos, requiring a tyrannical enforcer—like a king—to restore order.

Summary of the Question and Answer Session

At the conclusion of the main discussion, Michael Troy opens the floor to the audience for questions. Below is a detailed summary of each question asked by the participants and the answers provided by Metaxas and Troy:

1. Mike Davis’s Question: The Scope of the Stamp Act

Question: Did the Stamp Act only apply to papers sold in the American colonies, or did it apply within Great Britain and Scotland as well?
Answer: Metaxas defers to Troy's specialized knowledge on this specific legal history. Troy responds that while various Stamp Acts were implemented at different times across different regions of the British Empire, the specific, highly controversial Stamp Act of 1765 was designed to apply strictly to the North American colonies. Troy explains the mechanics of the act: the tax stamp was pre-printed directly onto paper in England, forcing the colonists to import all their legal and publishing paper from Britain. This severely damaged colonial paper mills, which were legally barred from manufacturing their own paper for these purposes.
Metaxas adds that John Adams and other colonial leaders viewed the act as a deliberate, calculated attempt to suppress free speech. They recognized that the high cost of imported, pre-stamped paper would bankrupt colonial newspapers, thereby crippling the free exchange of revolutionary ideas. Troy confirms this interpretation, noting that the act explicitly targeted newspapers while conspicuously exempting books, proving it was designed to quiet immediate political dissent.

2. Bob Wong’s Question: Thomas Paine and George Whitefield

Question: Is there any historical evidence that Thomas Paine was directly influenced by George Whitefield’s ideas when he wrote his highly influential pamphlet, Common Sense?
Answer: Metaxas acknowledges that while he cannot confirm a direct, documented link between the two men, the ideological connection is highly plausible. He notes that he dedicates an entire chapter in his book to Common Sense, calling it an unprecedentedly powerful document that single-handedly transformed colonial public opinion in just 47 pages. Metaxas points out that Paine's central argument against monarchy relies heavily on the Old Testament narrative that having a human king is fundamentally sinful and contrary to God’s design. He argues that even though Paine famously drifted away from Christian faith later in his life, at the time of writing Common Sense, he was thoroughly immersed in and utilizing the theological concepts popularized by Whitefield and the Great Awakening.
Troy adds the important biographical context that Paine only arrived in America a couple of years before the war began, meaning his intellectual foundation had been primarily shaped by the political and philosophical climate in England.

3. Audience Question (via Troy): The Origins of James Otis’s Ideas and the Whig Movement

Question: What was the origin of James Otis’s radical ideas, and did he and Paine draw from a shared British source?
Answer: Troy and Metaxas explain that both Otis and Paine were heavily influenced by the English Whig (or "wig") movement, which was deeply hostile to royal overreach. Metaxas expresses his personal delight in writing about John Wilkes, a famously witty and eccentric British Whig politician who vocally supported the American colonists. They discuss how British Whig giants like William Pitt and Edmund Burke openly defended the colonists in Parliament, arguing that the Americans were not launching a wild, novel rebellion, but were instead defending the traditional, historic "rights of Englishmen" established during the English Civil War. Troy frames the entire American crisis as a geographic extension of the ongoing British political battle between the Whigs (who favored Enlightenment reforms and parliamentary supremacy) and the Tories (who championed absolute obedience to the King). In America, there was no substantial Tory presence, allowing the radical Whig ideology to become dominant.

4. Audience Question (via Chat): The Iroquois Confederacy and Democracy

Question: Did the participatory democracy of the Iroquois Confederacy influence the founders’ design of the American government?
Answer: Metaxas strongly and unequivocally rejects this theory, calling it "naive" and "wildly overstated". While acknowledging that popular documentaries (such as Ken Burns's series) promote this idea, Metaxas compares it to claiming that the organizational structure of the "five families of the mafia" served as a beautiful template for American democracy.
Troy agrees with Metaxas's skepticism, explaining that while the founders admired the abstract philosophical concept of man living in a "state of nature" without a king, they also agreed with Thomas Hobbes's assessment that a true state of nature is a state of constant, brutal warfare. The ongoing, violent inter-tribal conflicts among Native Americans served as a cautionary tale of what happens without a stable, structured sovereign government, rather than a model the colonists wished to replicate. Metaxas concludes by pointing out that while his Greek ancestors invented democracy, it was historically confined to tiny city-states; scaling participatory democracy to an entire continent required a brand-new, highly complex legal structure that the founders had to design themselves.

5. Mark’s Question: The Reformation and the Revolution

Question: What is the relationship between the Protestant Reformation (such as Martin Luther’s stand on human equality and the Peasants' Revolt of 1524–1525) and the American Revolution?
Answer: Metaxas enthusiastically agrees with Mark's premise, stating that the American Revolution is the direct, long-term fruit of the Protestant Reformation. He explains that the core Reformation doctrine—that every individual must read the Bible, think clearly, and answer directly to God rather than blindly obeying an ecclesiastical hierarchy—directly translated into political independence.
To prove this, Metaxas highlights that when the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts in 1630, they immediately established Harvard College (1636) and mandated that every single town set up a grammar school. This massive push for universal literacy was not a secular Enlightenment initiative, but a deeply religious Reformation requirement. While Martin Luther himself did not fully grasp the concept of religious liberty and reacted poorly to the Peasants' Revolt, Metaxas argues that it took approximately 150 years for these radical seeds of individual conscience to fully mature and blossom into the American experiment.

6. Ed’s Question/Comment: Oliver Cromwell’s Influence on Religious Liberty

Question/Comment: Oliver Cromwell’s declaration of religious liberty in England in 1650 (which allowed Jews back into England for the first time in 300 years) had a massive, often unappreciated impact on the Puritan culture that ultimately led to the American Revolution.
Answer: Troy notes that while Cromwell succeeded in temporarily breaking the power of the Anglican Church, he is historically remembered as a negative example of a military dictator. This historical memory created a deep, permanent fear among the founders that George Washington would inevitably become an American Cromwell.
Ed and Metaxas actively defend Cromwell's legacy, pointing out that he was a highly "reluctant dictator" who spent a decade fighting for parliamentary democracy, attempted to abolish the House of Lords, and became furious when Parliament tried to offer him the crown. Despite his negative modern reputation, his radical Puritan governance heavily shaped the independent political ethos of New England.

7. Jay’s Question/Comment: The Long-Simmering Roots of Independence and the 1763 Proclamation Line

Question/Comment: The roots of American radicalism go back a full century before the Revolution, starting with the Puritans who fled Connecticut to found highly independent colonies in New Haven, Newark, and Elizabeth Town. This created a culture of "if I don't like it, I'll just go somewhere else". This dynamic worked perfectly until the British issued the Proclamation of 1763, which legally blocked colonists from expanding past the Appalachian Mountains. This boundary stripped colonists of their economic opportunities, boxed them in, and made them realize they were viewed by London as marginalized, second-class citizens.
Answer: Troy and Metaxas fully agree with Jay's analysis, noting that the revolutionary mindset was indeed over a century in the making. Troy points back even further to Roger Williams, who championed absolute freedom of religion in Rhode Island as early as the 1630s. Troy explains that while people in Europe had spent the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment fighting for freedom, their rebellions were routinely crushed by highly entrenched, powerful aristocracies. America was unique because the vast geographic space and the absence of an established aristocracy allowed these radical ideas of individual liberty and self-government to grow completely unchecked for generations, making the ultimate explosion of 1775 inevitable once Britain tried to reassert its authority.

* * *

Get a copy of Revolution: The Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the World, by Eric Metaxas.

Learn more about Eric Metaxas at https://ericmetaxas.com

Listen to The Eric Metaxas Show on YouTube, or subscribe on all major podcast platforms.

To see upcoming roundtable events, or listen to past recordings, go to AmRevRT.org

To participate live in future Zoom events, be sure to join as a member on Patreon, or sign up for my mailing list,

Click here to see my Patreon Page

You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, August 23, 2026

ARP398 John Adams Inauguration

On March 4, 1797, the presidency changed hands. George Washington left office and John Adams assumed the presidency.

Jefferson Sworn In

The new government actually got started without the president. At 10:00 AM the US Senate met in a special session. John Adams still formally headed the Senate as the sitting Vice President, but after Adams conducted the electoral college vote a month earlier and declared himself president, he thanked the Senators for his eight years presiding over that body and left. Adams had beaten Jefferson by three electoral votes. While the outcome was expected, no one was certain. The electoral votes had been held under seal until the count. Electors had told people who they voted for, but some might have lied. Until the votes were counted, no one could be certain. Adams actually prepared for the possibility of a Jefferson victory in the count and practiced showing firmness and good grace in the event that Jefferson had won.

Jefferson had come in second, meaning he would serve as Adams’ Vice President. William Bingham, the Senate’s President pro tempore, issued the oath of office to the new Vice President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson then assumed his seat as the President of the Senate and administered the oath to the eight new Senators who took office that same day.

Following the oaths, the Senate ended its special session and would not meet again for several months. Jefferson and most of the Senators then walked downstairs to the first floor of Congress Hall, right next to what we today call Independence Hall, to witness the inauguration of the new president.

Meeting with Jefferson

Jefferson had debated not attending the inauguration at all. In the end, he opted to go, for fear that people would say his absence was the result of him being upset about losing the election. He had been at home in Monticello, but headed up to Philadelphia for the event, arriving two days before the inauguration. He called on Adams at his home. It was the first time the two men had been in the same room together in over four years.

Earlier Jefferson had written a letter to President-elect Adams, insisting he was happy not to have been elected president, that he wished Adams well, and warned that the Jay Treaty might lead to war with France. He hoped that Adams could avoid war. Jefferson also warned Adams that Alexander Hamilton, who still held influence with many men in the government, would try to control his administration. Adams never saw the letter. Jefferson showed it to James Madison before sending it. Madison advised him to let Adams make his own way. Jefferson agreed and never sent the letter. It's possible that Jefferson discussed some of these things in their talk. It's also possible they just spoke in polite generalities. We don't know because there is no record of this conversation.

They may have discussed France a little, because the following day, the day before inauguration, Adams called on Jefferson, who was a guest at James Madison’s home. This was unusual. President Washington usually demanded everyone call on him as a matter of protocol. Adams did not have this concern.

Adams asked Jefferson to consider going to France and help negotiate an understanding between the two countries. Jefferson declined, saying he was tired of residing in Europe and that the Vice President should not be out of the country for the long time it would take to negotiate anything. Adams then suggested sending Madison. Jefferson agreed to take the offer to Madison, who was not present for the conversation, but Madison would also refuse to go. After their meeting, Jefferson moved into the hotel where Adams was staying, creating a message of unity on the eve of the inauguration.

Adams’ efforts to reach out to the leaders of the political opposition showed his efforts to support a bipartisan government and an attempt to rise above partisan politics.

Inauguration

Adams did his best to set the tone at his inauguration. President Washington had travelled to such formal events in a large coach with six horses, and usually a military retinue. Adams purchased what was described as a new simple black chariot. This simply meant a small but respectable carriage. Adams used only two horses. He also refused a military escort or to have any retinue of public officials in a procession with him. He wanted to keep it simple.

Taking the Oath

Abigail surprised her husband by having the Quincy coat of arms painted on the side. When Adams saw that, he immediately instructed it to be painted over. Any use of heraldry would certainly resurrect fears that Adams had a tendency to favor aristocracy.

Adams chose to wear a simple gray suit to wear to his inauguration. It was devoid of any fancy buttons or buckles, that were the style at the time. He did wear a small ceremonial sword. He also powdered his hair, but then so did Washington and Jefferson. Washington out-simpled Adams by simply walking to Congressional Hall without any carriage at all.

Adams opted to give his inaugural address before his swearing in. He spoke for about 15 minutes. He told his audience that he was out of the country as a diplomat when the country adopted the Constitution. He received the document itself before hearing from everyone about how it was being received. He spoke of his support for the Constitution, the importance of supporting a republican government against its natural enemies: “the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence”

Following the speech, Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth administered the oath of office. Ellsworth was the first Chief Justice to administer the oath. When Washington first took office, there was no Supreme Court so no chief justice, so the chancellor of New York administered the oath. For Washington’s second term, Justice William Cushing administered the oath. It’s not clear why Chief Justice John Jay did not do it, but he didn’t. Ellsworth had replaced Jay as Chief Justice about a year prior to Adams’ inauguration.

Following the oath, President Adams simply bowed and prepared to depart. Former President George Washington insisted that Adams and Jefferson leave before him, reflecting their new rank as the leaders. Adams noted that Washington seemed happier than he had been in some time. Adams wrote to Abigail the following day, she was still in Massachusetts. Adams wrote regarding Washington: “Methought I heard him think Ay! I am fairly out and you fairly in! see which of Us will be happiest.”

The men walked outside, to cheering crowds and cannon fire. Adams simply went back to his hotel room, alone. Later that afternoon, Washington called on Adams, to congratulate him again and express his sincere wishes of success. Washington then left to attend a feast at another hotel in honor of his farewell. Adams did not go there, or anywhere else. He spent the evening alone in his hotel room.

The Honeymoon

If Adams hoped that his displays of simplicity would engender some good will for his administration, he was right. As Vice President, Adams had received his fair share of criticism, especially from the Republican press. He was too monarchical. He enjoyed aristocracy and sought to implement it in America. He enjoyed fancy titles. Political leaders had even dubbed him His rotundity.

Benjamin Franklin Bache’s newspaper The Aurora, had been one of the most savage critics of the Washington administration and Vice President Adams. In September 1796, during the election, an Aurora editorial told its readers they would have to choose between a friend of liberty, or John Adams. The paper claimed that Adams was an “advocate for hereditary power.”

Following the inauguration, however, the Aurora was conspicuously respectful of Adams. It praised the new president’s “incorruptible integrity” and the “Republican plainness” that he had shown at his inauguration. Part of this praise may have been a final dig at Washington, implying that Adams was showing good qualities that Washington had not. It might also have been that the paper hoped that showing some support and encouragement might convince the new administration to adopt some of the Republican policies that the paper supported. It may also have been a more general application of the “honeymoon effect” where new presidents usually get near universal acclaim, at least until they do something that the critics don’t like.

There was some reason to believe that the honeymoon period might last for some time. Congress did not plan to meet again for another eight months, planning to begin its first session in November.

Adams could run the day to day affairs of government without any real concerns of Congressional meddling or criticism.

George Washington remained in Philadelphia, still packing up the Presidential residence for a few days, perhaps even a couple of weeks, before moving out. Adams remained in residence at the Francis Hotel at Fourth Street, along with Vice President Jefferson.

When Washington did finally move out, Adams began the process of taking possession of the presidential mansion. It was not an easy transition. Washington had purchased pretty much all of the furniture, including carpets and drapes for the residence. He took all of that home with him, leaving a relatively empty shell of a building. Washington had a staff of about two dozen people to run the household. These included household servants, laborers for the kitchen and stables, as well as personal secretaries and aides. At various times about 6-9 of the servants were slaves that Washington brought up from Mount Vernon.

They, along with most of the paid staff, either left with Washington for Mount Vernon, or went elsewhere. After Washington left, the servants apparently partied hard in the empty house for several days, leaving a huge mess.

On March 22, John wrote to Abigail about his first night in the house.

Last night for the first time I slept in our new House.— But what a Scene! The Furniture belonging to the Publick is in the most deplorable Condition— There is not a Chair fit to sit in. The Beds and Bedding are in a woeful Pickle. This House has been a scene of the most scandalous Drunkenness and Disorder among the servants, that ever I heard of. I would not have one of them for any Consideration. There is not a Carpet nor a Curtain, nor a Glass nor Linnen nor China nor any Thing.

Fortunately, Congress had granted Adams a one-time allowance of $14,000 to refurnish the residence. This helped but it was a difficult transition.

As President, Adams received a salary of $25,000 per year. This pay, however, was not just for himself. The president had to fund his entire office out of this money. He had to pay all of his aides, secretaries and assistants. Rent on the Presidential mansion alone was $2700 per year. Formal events, banquets, and other presidential functions were all paid out of the presidential salary. Washington had spent more than $5000 per year from the profits of his Mount Vernon plantation to supplement the costs. Adams had no plantation, and had no slaves to provide free labor for much of the work. I just get this image of Adams sitting, alone, in this filthy empty house thinking, what the heck?

Eventually, they would pull together a workable staff. But until Abigail arrived in May, Adams was pretty much on his own, in a near-empty house with no staff, trying to start his presidency.

Political Divide

As I said, Adams felt some goodwill from the opposition. He opted not to appoint any new cabinet members, but simply left President Washington’s team in place, even though Washington was not particularly thrilled with the cabinet when he left office. There was no tradition at the time to make changes with a new administration. Adams decided it would preserve the political harmony to leave things as they were, show respect for President Washington's choices, and avoid the appearance of appointing his own political toadies.

Washington’s original cabinet was pretty diverse, with Federalist Hamilton on one end, and Democratic-Republican Jefferson on the other. By the end of his term, though, his cabinet was pretty much all federalists. The cabinet secretaries had no particular loyalty or allegiance to President Adams. In fact, they all seemed to be taking guidance from a private attorney in New York by the name of Alexander Hamilton. By this time, Adams considered Hamilton a political enemy, particularly over Hamilton’s efforts to syphon off votes for Adams in the presidential election. If there was one thing that both President Adams and Vice President Jefferson agreed on, it was that Hamilton remained a huge threat to their administration.

The fighting between Adams and his cabinet began immediately. Adams’ immediate concern was a brewing war with France. I mentioned that Adams had tried to get either Jefferson or Madison Madison for a peace emmissary to Franceto France. After President Washington recalled James Monroe and sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as his replacement as minister to France, the French government refused to receive him and sent him packing. In fact, they threatened to arrest him if he did not leave the country. Pinckney left Paris but remained in Lyon, France

Adams proposed to send a three member commission to France to make peace with the French Government. To mollify the anti-Federalist sentiment in France, Adams planned to send one Federalist and two Democratic Republicans. One member he wanted was Elbridge Gerry, who Adams knew from Massachusetts and who had retired from Congress in 1793. Gerry was a Democratic-Republican, but got along with Adams. The other was Madison, who had just retired, not standing for reelection in 1796.

When Adams mentioned his idea to Secretary of Treasury, Oliver Wolcott, the Secretary told him that his entire cabinet would resign en masse if he appointed Madison to anything. Adams backed down. Fortunately Madison did not want the appointment either, and so the matter ended without creating an issue. But it made clear to Adams that his cabinet was not there to support him and his policies. They had their own agenda. Over time, Adams came to the conclusion that his cabinet was a cabal with their own agenda, and that agenda was guided primarily by Hamilton. Even so, Adams left his cabinet in place for nearly his entire administration

Unable to deal with France on his own, Adams opted for something that President Washington had never done - call for a special session of Congress. During Washington’s administration, Congress had gotten into the practice of waiting almost a year after the elections before going into session. They would begin meeting some time in October-December after being elected in November of the prior year.

The planned calendar for 1797 was no different. Other than the two hour Senate session to swear in Vice President Jefferson and the new Senators, Congress scheduled its first regular session for November, about eight months after Adams’ inauguration.

Adams, only a few weeks after his inauguration, issued a call for a special session. He had Secretary of State Timothy Pickering issue the call on March 25 for members to arrive on May 15, to address the diplomatic crisis with France. The day following Congress’ session, President Adams addressed a joint session of Congress.

Adams informed members that French officials had refused to accept the credentials of Washington’s appointee, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and even threatened to arrest him. France has also begun seizing US commercial ships in violation of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce that existed between the US and France. As a result, diplomatic relations with France were suspended.

He noted that France’s action:

evinces a disposition to separate the people of the United States from the Government . . . and thus to produce divisions fatal to our peace. Such attempts ought to be repelled with a decision which shall convince France and the world that we are not a degraded people, humiliated under a colonial spirit of fear and a sense of inferiority, fitted to be the miserable instruments of foreign influence, and regardless of national honor, character, and interest.

In response, Adams recommended sending a new negotiating team to France to demand explanations for their actions. At the same time, Congress needed to build up the US Navy, improve coastal defenses, and enlarge the army, all in preparation for a possible war with France. He did not call for a declaration of war, but indicated that the country should prepare for one.

Federalists, who commanded majorities in the House and Senate strongly praised Adams’ efforts to protect US commerce and his willingness to fight for American honor. Democratic Republicans were similarly outraged by Adams’ position. They viewed French hostility as the direct result of the Jay Treaty that the US had signed with Britain. Adams’ speech made clear that he was determined to maintain President Washington’s policy, which they saw as appeasement to Britain and an abandonment of the US alliance with France.

The opposition newspaper The Aurora, called Adams’ speech to Congress a “War Whoop” designed to provoke a war with France, not prevent one. After two months of praising the new president, the Aurora returned to the same relentless attacks on the administration that Washington had endured.

No one seemed sure whether the US would go to war with France or not. One thing was sure though. The honeymoon period of the Adams presidency was over.

Next week: A financial crisis adds to President Adams’ troubles.

- - -

Next Episode 399 Financial Crisis of 1797 (coming soon)

Previous Episode 397 End of Washington's Presidency

Podcast Tour! We want your input on an American Revolution Podcast Tour planned for 2027. Please give your opinion about what this tour should look like (no commitment and should only take a few minutes).

⁠https://survey.chasehistorytours.com/revolution

Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast

Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora

Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com

Click here to donate

DONATE

American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).

Click here to see my Patreon Page

You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to ad-free episodes, podcast extras, and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, August 16, 2026

ARP397 End of Washington's Presidency

In December, 1796, the fourth Congress returned for its final session. As President Washington had made a tradition, he marked the opening of Congress by delivering his annual address to the Congress on the State of the Union. This would be Washington’s final annual address. It was just before the announcement that John Adams would become president when Washington’s term ended in March. This was three months after Washington had published his farewell address.

Final Annual Address

Over the course of his presidency, Washington had various people help him to write his addresses. James Madison largely wrote his first and second annual address. Madison, along with Thomas Jefferson, wrote much of the third address with some input from Alexander Hamilton.

George Washington, 1797

Over his second term, Washington had relied more and more on Hamilton as his policies moved towards Hamilton’s and away from those of Madison and Jefferson. Hamilton did most of the work on the final address, even though Hamilton had already left government and was working as a private attorney in New York. The break resulted in a final address that seemed much more aligned with Federalists goals. We can argue about the final address was more aligned with Federalist goals because Hamilton wrote it, or that the president asked Hamilton to write it because he had already begun supporting mostly Federalist goals. Either way this was part of a larger trend of Washington moving toward Federalist principles while continuing to proclaim his neutrality and being above partisan politics.

The speech itself focused on many positive accomplishments. It began by noting the continuing peace among the Indians in Ohio and the purchases of lands in western Georgia from the Creek nation. The president also confirmed that the US army had taken possession of Fort Detroit and other British outposts that had remained on US territory since the Revolutionary War. The government also continued to work with Britain on other border disputes with British Canada and other matters related to the Jay Treaty. It also continued efforts to define the southern border with Spain in accordance with the Treaty of San Lorenzo.

He also mentioned the continuing progress with Algiers regarding a treaty and the liberation of American sailors who had been held there. Washington also noted that the US needed to continue building a Navy in order to secure respect for American shipping around the world.

His address praised efforts to encourage more domestic manufactures. Washington saw this as a national security issue. The country needed to be able to produce items necessary for preparing for war. It also needed to reduce dependency on foreign suppliers for necessities. Agriculture was also important, and the government should actively support expanding agriculture to feed the growing nation.

The president called on Congress to establish both a national university for the collection and diffusion of information, as well as a military academy. Both institutions would bring young men from all parts of the country to learn together, in a way that would help retain the bonds of union. A military academy would assure military leaders would be ready to handle future conflicts, so that officers would not be learning on the job like they did during the Revolutionary War.

Washington also called on Congress to increase the pay for federal officers. As things currently stood, only men of wealth could afford to fill the ranks of federal offices. This greatly diminished the pool of qualified officers. As he put it “it should be repugnant to the vital principles of our Government virtually to exclude from public trusts talents and virtue unless accompanied by wealth.”

Washington also warned of looming dangers. French ships were attacking American commercial shipping in the West Indies. While he noted his desire “to maintain a cordial harmony” with the French Republic, he would also act to maintain the “rights and honor of our country.”

The president submitted his estimated budget to the House of Representatives, reporting that revenues continued to grow, allowing continued repayment of the war debt.

Washington concluded his address, saying

The situation in which I now stand for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the administration of the present form of government commenced, and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual.

As had become tradition Congress responded by thanking the president for his address. But this year was different. For the first time in eight years, James Madison did not chair the committee to write the House’s response. Madison and Washington had famously broken earlier in the year and were not speaking to each other. While the response did prairie the “wise, firm, and patriotic” conduct of Washington’s administration and expressed “gratitude and admiration” for his years of service, there was opposition to this language from several Democratic Republicans who thought the president did not deserve the praise.

Executive Privilege

Washington’s last year in office had been his most divisive. A big part of that division was the result of the Jay Treaty. When we discussed the Jay treaty a few episodes back, I mentioned that, even after passage, Congress still tried to kill it. The Constitution says that the President makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. The House of Representatives plays no role in the process.

But given that the public, as well as the majority of Representatives in the House saw the treaty as a sellout to Britain, they continued to fight over it, even after it was signed and ratified. The Treaty required changes in law, including giving Britain most favored nation status for tariffs. It also called for setting up commissions that Congress had to fund. As a result, the House of Representatives continued to argue over the treaty, and implementing features required under the treaty, well into 1796.

House committees demanded that President Washington turn over all internal documents related to the Jay Treaty negotiations. Washington refused to comply. He argued that turning over internal discussions would prevent members of the executive branch from having frank and private discussions in the future. If they knew their thoughts and actions would be subject to Congressional scrutiny later, they would be much more guarded in their communications. As a result, Washington claimed a privilege not to turn over these communications. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly gave him this privilege, but he regarded it as a necessity toward maintaining an effective executive branch. This has since become known as executive privilege.

After Washington put the full weight of his authority in favor of the treaty, the House narrowly passed the authorizing funds. Following that vote in April 1796, Congress generally gave up on any further efforts to interfere with the treaty. The fight, however, hopelessly divided the two parties. Washington’s reputation took a powerful hit in terms of the support he once had across the political spectrum. It was his final break with Madison. From that point on, Washington pretty firmly sided with the Federalists.

French Relations

One of the bigger issues that Washington only touched on briefly in his final address was the US relations with France. The French Republic saw the Jay Treaty with Britain as a realignment of the US to be aligned with Britain. As such, France began attacking US shipping in the West Indies. As I noted in earlier episodes, France also played an active role in the 1796 elections. French Minister Pierre Adet had actively and openly campaigned for Thomas Jefferson for President and had implied war with France if John Adams won.

In the meantime, James Monroe, who had begun serving as the US Minister to France in 1794, had given an enthusiastic speech to the French National Convention pledging the affections of the American people to the French Republic. President Washington saw this speech as implying that the US would not maintain its neutrality, as Washington wanted.

After Washington signed the Jay Treaty with Britain, he expected Monroe to make efforts to ally French anger over the treaty and to make clear that the US would not violate the Treaty of Amity and Commerce that the US and France had signed back in 1778. Instead, Monroe seemed to side with the French radicals. He gave the appearance of encouraging French grievances and validated their condemnations of the Jay Treaty.

Things grew worse when the president learned that Monroe was leaking confidential information to Republican leaders in America to be published in opposition newspapers like Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Aurora, which Washington despised.

Monroe simply was not representing the administration. Rather, he was representing the Republican opposition in America. Monroe even told French officials that they should just tolerate the “wrongs” of President Washington’s administration and simply wait for the election of 1796 when the Republicans would win office and have a government much more favorable toward France. This only encouraged French officials to get involved more in the US elections.

This led Washington to recall Monroe as Ambassador in July, replacing him with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the brother of British Ambassador Thomas Pinckney. Officials, however, delayed the announcement so that Monroe would not have time to return to America and participate in the 1796 elections.

When Pinckney showed up in Paris in November, French officials refused to accept his credentials. This would lead to a larger dispute the following year under the Adams Administration, but we’ll get into that in a future episode.

About the same time his brother arrived in Paris, Thomas Pinckney was on his way home to America. He knew he was in the running to become Vice President and wanted to be home before the results of the election were announced. Washington appointed Senator Rufus King to replace him at the Court of St. James.

King had been a good Federalist Senator in New York. Washington had offered to make him Secretary of State when Edmund Randolph resigned in 1795. King had been a vocal advocate for the Jay Treaty, but declined appointment to State. In 1796 though, he accepted the ambassadorship to Britain, which he held until several years into the Jefferson Administration.

Treaty with Tripoli

The last foreign treaty negotiated under the Washington Administration was a treaty with Tripoli in North Africa. Its formal name was the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

As I mentioned in an earlier episode, US merchant ships were easy prey for the Barbary Pirates along the coast of North Africa. Because the US had no navy at all, there was no incentive for the raids to stop. In 1795, the US negotiated a treaty with the Dey of Algiers, where they essentially paid him off with cash and gifts, including building a 32 gun frigate, the Crescent, for Algiers. This treaty quieted the largest threat in North Africa, but not the only threat.

The ships operating out of Tripoli were separate from Algiers and continued to threaten US shipping. In August, 1796, when Tripoli's ships captured two American ships and condemned them as prizes. American Agent Joel Barlow worked with his contacts in Algiers to reach an agreement with the Dey of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli

The treaty was a relatively simple one. The US would make a one time payment of just over $56,000 in return for Tripoli ships leaving US shipping alone and the return of US sailors held as slaves in Tripoli.

The price of $56,000 was very low when compared to the roughly $1 million given to Algiers a year earlier. The Tripoli Treaty also agreed that Algiers would have some responsibility for enforcing the treaty. This was a nod to the fact that Algiers was the regional power, and Americans were effectively trying to get Algiers to police Tripoli actions against US shipping.

The treaty also made very clear that this was a one-time payment and that no further payments would be made. This seems almost doomed to fail since a one-time payment would not assure good behavior into the indefinite future. But it was enough to keep things in check for the moment.

One interesting clause in the treaty sought to assure Tripoli that the United States was not a Christian nation and had no beef with Muslim nations. Article 11 of the treaty read:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty would not be ratified in the Senate until after John Adams assumed the presidency. But the agreement was in place before Washington left office. The Senate had little debate and easily ratified the treaty.

Final Attacks

Despite a few accomplishments in his final year, Washington’s last year as president was very frustrating. I’ve discussed many of these things over the last few episodes, but it is important to remember that Washington was experiencing all of them within a few months of each other.

By 1796, Washington was turning 64 years old. His health continued to decline. His back pain grew more intense. He suffered from facial neuralgia, hearing loss, and rheumatism. On top of all that, he had to have the last tooth in his mouth pulled in 1796. The increasing physical ailments paled in comparison to his increasing political isolation and attacks on his character.

The last original member of his cabinet, Edmund Randolph, resigned under scandal in early 1796. Politics had become so polarized that no Democratic Republican leaders would join his administration. His cabinet consisted of Federalists, but men with whom he did not have long histories. The split over the Jay Treaty debates had severed his relationships with other leaders like Jefferson and Madison.

President Washington had struggled to remain above partisan politics and to be a consensus leader who all Americans supported. That also seemed to be falling apart. The opposition press, particularly Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Aurora, grew increasingly vitriolic against the President.

Most of the attacks followed lines of either Washington had become a senile old fool who was being controlled by wicked men, or he was a tyrannical monster or closet monarchist who had hidden his true colors for many years but was finally revealing himself. Many press attacks just ventured into bizarre unsubstantiated attacks, including charges that Washington was a, a womanizer, a miser, and a blasphemer. Some of the stories dredged up accusations that he had committed battlefield atrocities during the French and Indian War. One article even asserted that Washington had been a paid British agent during the war taking bribes from the British during the Revolution. While this charge was based on forged documents, Washington had to quietly seethe, believing it unseemly to respond to them.

In July of 1796, Thomas Paine wrote an open letter to Washington. The main source of Paine’s venom came from the fact that the administration had allowed him to languish in a French prison during the reign of terror. His long and rambling letter attacked Washington’s support of the Jay Treaty, but went well beyond that even attacking Washington’s performance as General during the Revolutionary War. A major thrust of the letter attacked Washington for abandoning France as an ally and seemingly putting America under the thumb of Great Britain once again, thus betraying everything for which their generation had fought. Paine ended his letter with the following:

If there is sense enough left in the heart to call a blush into the cheek, the Washington administration must be ashamed to appear.———And as to you, sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide, whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any?

Members of the political opposition even called for Washington’s impeachment. An anonymous article by the House clerk, John Beckley charged that Washington had stolen public funds by overdrawing his presidential salary. The charges referred to the president as a “common swindler” who deserved impeachment. Washington received a very generous $25,000 annual salary. But that amount was meant to run his household and his administration, paying his staff and running the executive office. It’s possible that there were some cost overruns, but the notion that the President was deliberately stealing funds through fraud was particularly galling to Washington’s sense of honor. In fact, he was still nearly broke. He was forced to sell some of his land to pay for his return to Mount Vernon

Washington was especially sensitive to attacks on his character. Also in July, well before Paine’s letter, Washington wrote his last letter of any significance to Thomas Jefferson. He bemoaned the attacks on him and his administration.

until within the last year or two, I had no conception that Parties Would, or even could go, the length I have been Witness to; nor did I believe until lately, that it was within the bounds of probability—hardly within that of possibility, that while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations, and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth; and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve this Country from the horrors of a desolating war, that I should be accused of being the enemy of one Nation, and subject to the influence of another;3 and to prove it, that every act of my Administration would be tortured, and the grossest, & most insiduous mis-representations of them be made (by giving one side only of a subject, and that too in such exagerated, & indecent term[s] as could scarcely be applied to a Nero; a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pickpocket).

I’ve only focused on the attacks on Washington. Of course he had his many supporters. The majority of the country still strongly supported him. But Washington could not help but focus on the criticism. His dream of being universally esteemed could not survive in a country that was becoming increasingly divided, and that a portion of Americans saw Washington on one side of that divide. President Washington had had enough, and could not wait to end his presidency and go home.

Next week: Washington ends his presidency and goes home, following the inauguration of President John Adams.

- - -

Next Episode 398 John Adams Inauguration

Previous Episode 396 Election of 1796

⁠https://survey.chasehistorytours.com/revolution

Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast

Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora

Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com

Click here to donate

DONATE

Click here to see my Patreon Page

Sunday, August 30, 2026

ARSP53 Eric Metaxas - Revolution

Metaxas's Motivation and the "Generalist" Perspective

The Spark of Rebellion: James Otis and the Writs of Assistance

John Adams: The Anti-Politician and Record Keeper

The "Revolution in the Minds" and Pre-War Protests

British Missteps and the Rise of Military Governance

Geographic Focus and Forgotten Heroes

The Spiritual and Theological Roots of Liberty

Summary of the Question and Answer Session

1. Mike Davis’s Question: The Scope of the Stamp Act

2. Bob Wong’s Question: Thomas Paine and George Whitefield

3. Audience Question (via Troy): The Origins of James Otis’s Ideas and the Whig Movement

4. Audience Question (via Chat): The Iroquois Confederacy and Democracy

5. Mark’s Question: The Reformation and the Revolution

6. Ed’s Question/Comment: Oliver Cromwell’s Influence on Religious Liberty

7. Jay’s Question/Comment: The Long-Simmering Roots of Independence and the 1763 Proclamation Line

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, August 23, 2026

ARP398 John Adams Inauguration

Jefferson Sworn In

Meeting with Jefferson

Inauguration

The Honeymoon

Political Divide

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Further Reading

Websites

Free eBooks(from archive.org unless noted)

Adams, Charles F. The Life of John Adams, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1871.Morse, Jr. John T. John Adams, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. 1884. Wood, John The History of the Administration of John Adams, Esq., Late President of the United States, New York: Barlas and Ward, 1802.

Books Worth Buying(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Brown, Ralph A. The Presidency of John Adams, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1975. Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004.

McCullough, David John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001. Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012

Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (or Portrait in Paradox), Harper & Brothers, 1959 (borrow on archive.org)

Nester, William The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800, Potomac Books, 2012.

Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sunday, August 16, 2026

ARP397 End of Washington's Presidency

Final Annual Address

Executive Privilege

French Relations

Treaty with Tripoli

Final Attacks

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Further Reading

Websites

(from archive.org unless noted)

Vivian, Herbert Tunisia and the Modern Barbary Pirates, New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1899.

Wood, John The History of the Administration of John Adams, Esq., Late President of the United States, New York: Barlas and Ward, 1802. Books Worth Buying(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Amon, Harry, James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity, Univ Press of Va. 1990.Brown, Ralph A. The Presidency of John Adams, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1975. Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004.

McCullough, David John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001. McGrath, Tim James Monroe: A Life, Dutton, 2020.Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012

Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (or Portrait in Paradox), Harper & Brothers, 1959 (borrow on archive.org)

Nester, William The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800, Potomac Books, 2012.

Pasley, Jeffrey L. The First Presidential Contest: 1796 and the Founding of American Democracy, University Press of Kansas, 2016. Randall, Willard Sterne Thomas Jefferson: A Life, Henry Holt and Co. 1993.Sears, Louis M. George Washington and the French Revolution, Wayne State Univ. Press, 1960.

Sharp, James R. American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis, Yale Univ. Press, 1993 (relevant chapter on JSTOR).

Spalding, Matthew and Patrick Garrity A Sacred Union of Citizens, Roman & Littlefield, 1996 (borrow on archive.org). Staloff, Darren Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The Politics of Enlightenment and the American Founding, Hill and Wang, 2005.

Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Adams, Charles F. The Life of John Adams, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1871.
Morse, Jr. John T. John Adams, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. 1884.
Wood, John The History of the Administration of John Adams, Esq., Late President of the United States, New York: Barlas and Ward, 1802.

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Brown, Ralph A. The Presidency of John Adams, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1975.
Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004.

McCullough, David John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001.
Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012

Wood, John The History of the Administration of John Adams, Esq., Late President of the United States, New York: Barlas and Ward, 1802.
Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Amon, Harry, James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity, Univ Press of Va. 1990.
Brown, Ralph A. The Presidency of John Adams, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1975.
Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004.

McCullough, David John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001.
McGrath, Tim James Monroe: A Life, Dutton, 2020.
Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012

Pasley, Jeffrey L. The First Presidential Contest: 1796 and the Founding of American Democracy, University Press of Kansas, 2016.
Randall, Willard Sterne Thomas Jefferson: A Life, Henry Holt and Co. 1993.
Sears, Louis M. George Washington and the French Revolution, Wayne State Univ. Press, 1960.

Spalding, Matthew and Patrick Garrity A Sacred Union of Citizens, Roman & Littlefield, 1996 (borrow on archive.org).
Staloff, Darren Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The Politics of Enlightenment and the American Founding, Hill and Wang, 2005.