Brookhiser's book about the Adams family takes a look at four generations of the Adamses and discusses their contributions to American history. While this book does offer some minor insights, it is flawed in a number of ways.

First of all, thematically, this book is weak. While John Adams and John Quincy Adams are important figures in history, Charles and Henry are really much more footnotes. Nonetheless, Brookhiser gives each figure equal weight, while it is clear that - like most dynasties - the glory rarely lasts beyond the second generation. And with all the discussion he gives to the later Adamses, he only peripherally discusses John's important cousin, Samuel Adams.

Not as glaring but more problematic is Brookhiser's occasional distortion of history and his imperfect objectivity. A couple examples: he refers to James Buchanan as a definite homosexual, while the evidence is far from clear on that subject. He also incorrectly states the chronology of the 1824 election: John Quincy Adams did not offer Clay the Secretary of State position until after he was elected.

At best, this book is half good, primarily as an introduction to John and John Quincy, both of whom have much better biographies available. Otherwise, this book is skippable.

Richard Brookhiser doesn't write 'biographies' in the conventional sense -- and certainly not in the modern sense, in which writers seem determined to prove that once-admired historical figures are just as messed up as the rest of us, and probably even worse. No, what Brookhiser attempts to do (as I believe he noted in 'Founding Father,' his book about George Washington) is reclaim the ancient idea of biography as a means of understanding and exploring ideas about civic virtue, citizenship, and (dare we say?) morals.

This isn't to say that Brookhiser whitewashes his subjects. Far from it: his subjects come through in this book both as sharply defined individuals and as members of a family with a very clear sense of itself and its place in history. That he chooses not to bog himself down in domestic minutia doesn't detract from the quality of the biography, and enhances the points he's trying to make.

If this book were a novel, cover blurbs would breathlessly proclaim it 'the sweeping saga of an American family across four tempestuous generations.' And the description wouldn't be far wrong. From the time of the Founding until the First World War, the Adams family was (to varying degrees at various times, but always to some extent) among the most prominent, influential, respected, and reviled families in America. Brookhiser does a fine job showing how four individual members of this family bore that inheritance, and shaped, and were shaped by, what it meant to be an Adams. If 'the contract of the [American] founding ... was a contract with their family' (p. 199), the family had contractual obligations in return. Many Adamses chose not to fulfill those 'obligations.' But the four who most notably did, did so with one eye on their times and the other on their patrimony.

The four biographies are fascinating in their own rights. But the section of the book I most enjoyed was the final four chapters, in which Brookhiser weighs one Adams against another and against some of the perennial questions of American civic life -- most notably the question of Republic versus Empire. It's here, especially, that Brookhiser shows how the lessons of the Adams dynasty apply to our own times as well as theirs.

The most obvious appeal of 'America's First Dynasty' is to students of political history. But it also bears reading for the light it shines on current political, constitutional, and cultural questions, and for the recurring dilemma of the family in American political life. For if the supermarket tabloids still label a certain other political/media clan as 'America's royal family,' it's worth remembering that they're not the first nor, by any stretch, the most important. This book is definitely worth a read.

When reading "America's First Dynasty: The Adamses, 1735-1918" one reads the sweep of 150 years of American history through the eyes of America's first dynastic family.

The Adamses, their quarrels, their prejudices, and their crazy ideas, (John Adams thought the new nation would soon turn to a hereditary monarchy), are put into the context of the times for the modern reader to absorb. The result is a remarkably readable book sized for today's attention span.

In the section on Henry Adams, the writer, historian and great grandson of John Adams, our second President, we get a glimpse of the perspective that being an heir to history can bestow on someone willing to accept it when Richard Brookhiser writes about Adams' book "History of the United States in the Administration of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison." The following excerpt includes portions of "History..." as well as Brookhiser's own synopsis of the book.

"America invited men to partake of a national wealth that was as yet mostly uncreated; the openness of the offer tapped reservoirs of energy and devotion. 'The poor came, and from them were seldom heard complaints of deception or delusion. Within a moment, by the mere contact of a moral atmosphere, they saw... the summer cornfields and the glowing continent.' America's natural resources were not gold or coal, but opportunity and the people the opportunity attracted."

Brookhiser has written a fine book. I am now compelled to read his other works.

There have been two instances of a father and son both achieving the presidency of the United States and there is a common characteristic. In each case one of the two had a distinguished history of public service that would indicate excellent preparation for the rigors of being president. However, both of those men served only one term, voted down amid lackluster support even among those who were their natural political allies.
George Bush senior was a combat aviator in world war two, served in congress, was head of the CIA and was vice president for eight years. And yet, his presidency is generally considered to have been more of a caretaker administration than anything else. He came dangerously close to coming in third in the election where he was defeated by Bill Clinton. John Quincy Adams served his nation well as an ambassador to Europe during some of the most troubling early years of the nation. A distinguished public figure in many other ways, it certainly appeared that he was well prepared for the presidency. However, his administration was also rather lackluster and it too has the appearance of a caretaker government.
Despite the relative lack of major events during the four years of the John Quincy Adams administration, Hargreaves manages to fill 323 pages. This attention to excruciating detail makes the book difficult to read and it is by far the least interesting of the eight books in the American presidency series that I have read. To put this into perspective, the eight years of the Andrew Jackson presidency are summarized in 277 pages and the four years of the Van Buren administration in 211. Detailed explanations of minor legislative debates and the personal relationships between the principles are presented to the point that they just become tedious.
All of this in unfortunate, because John Quincy Adams was a very interesting man who tried to uphold the principles of democracy as he saw them. The problem of course was that the nation was changing. He was the last president with roots to the old statesman/gentleman mold of men that created the nation and the constitution. Adams was constantly fighting the populist movement of Andrew Jackson, with the appeal to the masses that was so different from the presidential politics that had come before. This point is mentioned in the book, but unfortunately all the detail tends to bury it.
The presidency of John Quincy Adams marks a turning point in the history of the United States. After him, presidents were elected by political campaigns with mass appeal rather than the collective will of a relatively small number of people. Furthermore, they were no longer chosen from a group of aristocratic gentleman, as rough hewn self-made men were now viable candidates. This point is made in the book, but not as well as it should and certainly not as precisely as it could have been.