Sunday, May 2, 2010
Round "?" in Adams vs. Franklin
I question, as others of you seem to be doing, whether or not history is giving John Adams a place of importance equal to that of Benjamin Franklin. If, indeed, that has not happened, why not? When I have talked with others about my concerns over the "wonderful" (being sarcastic) Franklin, I have been shot down quickly, not with facts, but with sentiment. After I read the article on Benjamin Franklin, I related to a different Franklin than the one portrayed in the biography of John Adams. While my thinking that follows happened out of an immediate need to come to grips with the absence of Adams' name mentioned as a contributor to the writings, it has helped me to calm my desire to see these two great statesmen pitted against each other in a knockdown fight for supremacy. Benjamin Franklin was quite a gifted man in many areas, even though we usually think of him as either the inventor or the statesman. No matter, he was important. By the time Jefferson was writing the declaration, Franklin was aging. He had been very helpful for many, many years. In France, the effects of age may be partly to blame for his "European" attitudes and desires, and yes, perhaps even for the laziness that Adam saw in him. I cannot hold this against a man who had previously given so much to mankind. Obviously, it gave "clout" to the declaration to have his name mentioned with it. So, that's how I came to renew my belief in Franklin. Adams, however, was perhaps so patriotic and willing to serve his country and fellowmen that he served quietly and without attention. I will be anxious for the historians among us to answer this problem correctly, but for now, I am at peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a great post! I found myself snarling at Franklin also, as well as Jefferson, the more I read in "John Adams." Their "time" and place in history is so far removed from us that it is hard to say what is history (truth) and what is the researcher's/author's interpretations and interpolations. Nonetheless, I was touched by Adams' quiet, but efficient patriotism in managing his assignments (as it was given in the book), and his deep commitment to his country, which his actions so manifested. One might say that, if you can't walk the walk then don't talk the talk. Adams personified total commitment to his principles and what he believed the nation should be doing to extricate themselves from the fetters of Britain, and how the new nation should be. (Seems redundant to state but, his family sacrificed a lot too and I wonder if they could really be called a "family" in the sense that they were rarely around each other. Perhaps it was just what was expected....) Isn't it just amazing though, that those "men" the founding fathers, were there at that time and place and they managed something that had never been done in the world before. Even Franklin's contributions were important and they all had idiosyncrasies which nonetheless, didn't deter them from seeing it through to the end. It is a magnificent thing that so many intelligent, courageous and able men did what they did.
ReplyDeleteI am just finishing Part II and find myself analyzing all of these men based on what I thought I knew from past history courses. It seems that Adams was in a difficult situation while in Europe; his loyalty to the new country and the possibility of peace would be all consuming. I somewhat understand his frustrations with Franklin and the other leaders as has been mentioned. It would be hard to see them apparently more focused on the social aspects of the planning than what Adams felt was important. I applaud his dedication, patience, and only occasional outbursts during this crucial time.
ReplyDeleteDitto to both of you. I have to remind myself when I start to judge history that it is hard to actually put myself in their place. My judgements are based on my world today, and it was very different in many ways back then.
ReplyDelete