Revolution Is No Tea Party

Jonathan Karl, of ABC News, reviews a biography: Samuel Adams: A Life, by Ira Stoll (Free Press, 338 pages, $28).

he was perhaps the most forceful single figure behind the American Revolution. He was also America's first great political operative, mastering the arts of spin and strategy in ways that future generations of David Axelrods and Lee Atwaters could profitably emulate. Ira Stoll, in his pithy and well-researched biography, sets out to rescue Adams from historical obscurity.

flagitious: extremely wicked, deeply criminal
condign: fitting or appropriate and deserved; used especially of punishment

The book makes it abundantly clear why the British so detested Adams. He started talking independence more than a decade before the Declaration and did more than anyone to organize opposition to colonial taxes and to make "no taxation without representation" a rallying cry.

The original spinmeister. An incident on March 5, 1770, which led to shots being fired, resulted in 11 colonists shot, 5 fatally.

The facts surrounding the incident are still in dispute, but, writes Mr. Stoll, "what is certain is that Adams pressed immediately and aggressively to wring every possible bit of political advantage from the bloodshed." He started by giving it a name: the Boston Massacre.

Sam engaged in agitprop, writing 20,000 words on the subject in Boston newspapers. Juries acquitted six soldiers, and found two guilty of merely manslaughter. Sam was incensed. One can only imagine what he thought of his cousin John, who defended the British soldiers in court.

Family gatherings must have been tense. A curious twist, considering John would become president, and Sam would be relegated to oblivion.

Adams's next major move was to instigate what turned out to be the Boston Tea Party, a protest against yet another British tax. Adams publicized the episode in a way that would, once again, maximize support for the cause of independence. He pointed out – in public letters and newspaper columns – that the ships themselves were not harmed, only the tea; in a bit of revolutionary spin, he blamed the whole thing on the unyielding royal governor.

That's spin control.

If Mr. Stoll's biography lacks the narrative power of books on other Founders, such as David McCullough's "John Adams," the reason may be that the paper trail left by Samuel Adams is frustratingly short. He destroyed much of his correspondence during the revolutionary years, fearful that it could fall into the wrong hands. Some of the letters that remain end with the words "burn this." This Adams wasn't playing for the history books. He was trying to plot a revolution. Mr. Stoll makes a convincing case that Samuel Adams is not just the most underrated of the Founders but also one of the most admirable, down-to-earth and principled (he worked to abolish slavery).

A Republican, not a Federalist (as was John), he was 81 when Jefferson became president. TJ certainly thought highly of Sam.

"I often asked myself, is this exactly in the spirit of the patriarch of liberty, Samuel Adams? Is it as he would express it? Will he approve of it?" Jefferson lamented that the 81-year-old Adams could not serve in his administration, but, he wrote, "give us your counsel my friend, and give us your blessing." Adams died two years later.

If Mr. Stoll's biography lacks the narrative power of books on other Founders, such as David McCullough's "John Adams," the reason may be that the paper trail left by Samuel Adams is frustratingly short. He destroyed much of his correspondence during the revolutionary years, fearful that it could fall into the wrong hands. Some of the letters that remain end with the words "burn this." This Adams wasn't playing for the history books. He was trying to plot a revolution. Mr. Stoll makes a convincing case that Samuel Adams is not just the most underrated of the Founders but also one of the most admirable, down-to-earth and principled (he worked to abolish slavery).