Dear John Adams ...

Dear Mr. Adams,

I feel as though beginning this letter by gushing about your rise to the Presidency and fervent dedication to the cause of American liberty would be beneath you ... but knowing you as I do I am sure you would much appreciate that more than any criticism I might wield against your accomplishments, valid or no.

But neither flattery nor vilification are why I am writing to you today. Instead I would much rather ask for information and clarification. Please understand, this is not coming from a place of accusation or scorn but more from an earnest desire to understand your point of view on a certain collection of matters. There are ideas that you had during your career that were wildly ahead of their time and yet they are juxtaposed against other ideas that could not have been more firmly rooted in your time if they had tried. 

It is this contradiction that frustrates me when I am asked who my favorite US President is. I immediately want to shout to the Heavens that is neither the first nor the sixteenth person to hold that office but rather the second, the long-time advocate for American sovereignty and the national hero who helped lead this country and its people to freedom. 




But invariably I am blocked by some unseen force and instead pivot to other contenders for runner-up status such as Roosevelt for his history-making four term administration or Garfield for his heart-wrenching story of assassination. I am just shy of embarrassed to say that you, Mr. Adams, rank highest on my list because for all of your great accomplishments, and I do not mean to say they are not, one cannot help but wonder why you left out so many from your Revolution. Why were enslaved Africans and African Americans not enough to warrant your freedom? Why were those who did own land not equal to those who did when it came to making the laws of this land? Why were women to remain home and out of the business of ... well, business?

Please correct me if I am wrong, sir, but I feel I am not. You yourself have said exactly these things in the past. When corresponding with your colleague James Sullivan, state court judge of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had this to say:

"It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every act of legislation?...

…Why exclude women? …Because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own…

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level."

Mr. President, I respect your opinion a great deal quite often but in all honesty this is not only insulting but a complete inaccuracy. To say that women are simply too delicate to survive in the real world is mind-boggling. Do the women you know not run their households - a word that in your time meant a great deal more than it does for most people today? A household for your contemporaries are businesses unto themselves be they farms, crafts houses, taverns, or any number of other professions.

Do you honestly feel that women are not involved in goings-on of her husband's livelihood? Does her contributions to the family matter that little to you? Or is it that you never quite noticed how much is accomplished by the often more silent half of a marital partnership? After all, most people are not lucky enough to have at their side one of the strongest, smartest, and most capable companions to help guide them through life.

Let's speak a moment, if we may, about your wife.

If asked a similar question like before, I would not hesitate in the slightest to say that Abigail is my favorite of this country's First Ladies. She seems to have a strength unparalleled for your time and, I'd wager, many others as well. She managed your farm, your business, your family, and your life while you were off in Boston, Philadelphia, New York, France, and everywhere else your search for freedom led you.

I place no blame in your leaving her at home, you had important work to do and the family must continue. However, in your letters back and forth with the wife you truly loved very deeply, why is it that she is given no credit for the work she does in your absence? Oh, there is appreciation for tending the family, to be sure, but were you alone as she was for those many, many years I find it hard to believe that you could manage to run every aspect of that life as well as she did - all while her partner was a world away for years at a time.

The respect you had for Abigail was evident - to a point. She knew very well your feelings on a woman's place in the world and even beseeched you to reexamine this as you and your fellow Congressmen in Philadelphia began to rewrite the future of this continent. In a letter to you as you helped craft the foundations of the United States, she wrote:

“I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

My love for this woman knows no bounds, let me assure you.

Your wife here draws a direct comparison to the work you have been doing in freeing yourselves from Britain's rule and that of another group of people suffering under the rule of others with no expectation of a voice. Why is the plight of women so much different from that of yours? Why are they simply women who should be at home and not fellow American Rebels fighting for their right to be free? Why is the work they have done to keep this country together during its most tumultuous time not worth the same as yours?

You began your earlier letter to Judge Sullivan by saying "it is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people." You clearly understand that it is the voice of the society that should dictate government and not the other way around. What I cannot understand is how you can so willingly choose who does and does not belong in this great category known as "The People."

Why only white, land-owning, men seem to qualify bears little similarity to the soaring rhetoric of freedom and independence that you are so known for and that made me fall in love with your history. Your words helped steel this large collection of strangers into a people not only able to but WANTING to stand up to the global might of the British Empire. This is no small feat and you deserve every accolade you receive and then some (I'm still waiting for a monument in your dedication in Washington D.C. and feel it a travesty you are without one) but when it comes to your stance on women, I simply am unable to square that circle and it both frustrates and saddens me.

I hope you can take time and rethink your stance on this issue and come to see how much others have to contribute to society. They say that every great man has a great woman behind him but I find it hard to believe that famous husbands are the only reason the world would ever know the names Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and countless others.

If they had not met their husbands, do you honestly believe that these women would not have achieved greatness on their own? If so then I am left with a great sense of pity for you, Mr. President, and I can assure you that I won't be making the mistake of describing you as my favorite President.

Sincerely yours,
Brett A. Murphy