The Contributions of Samuel Adams to the American Revolution: A Historiographic Analysis by Karen Perkins As John Adams stated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on May 27, 1819, Samuel Adams’ character “will never be accurately known to posterity as it was never sufficiently known to its own age.”1 Adams made it a habit to burn or cut up his correspondences and personal writings, going so far as to end one wartime letter with “Burn this.”2 His collected writings fill only four volumes where as George Washington’s writings fill thirty-six volumes.3 The elusiveness of the character of Samuel Adams has allowed for a wide interpretation of his place and influence in American Revolution. Prominent American Revolution histories rarely discuss Adams at length and there are few biographies about him. With Samuel Adams’ description in history going from heroic father of the Revolution to zealot and propagandist directing mobs to a complex man who greatly influenced the American Revolution, this essay will evaluate how the various interpretations of Samuel Adams over time in prominent American Revolutionary histories that discuss him and biographies, specifically analyzing arguments about his motivation and influence in beginning and sustaining the American Revolution. The first histories of the American Revolution began to appear in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. These Whig histories were written from the winners’ perspective and look at the Revolution in heroic and divine terms. Most of the Whig histories mention Samuel Adams but do not delve into his contributions to the Revolution. One Whig history that does is Mercy Otis Warren’s History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the 1 Ira Stoll, Samuel Adams: A Life (New York: Free Press, 2008) 262. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. American Revolution interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observation from 1805. Though still not writing about him at length, Warren does describe Adams favorably and states that he has “a cool head, stern manners, a smooth address, and a Roman-like firmness.”4 For Warren, Adams was a virtuous and moral leader of the Revolution, never faltering from his religious or political beliefs. Warren shows that “Through a long life he exhibited on all occasions, an example of patriotism, religion, and virtue honorary to the human character.”5 One of the first histories that acknowledged and discussed the influence of Samuel Adams in the American Revolution at length was George Bancroft’s History of the United States of America written from 1864- 1874. Bancroft depicts Adams as one of the most influential founding fathers and describes him in positive terms, stating that he had “the most clear and logical mind.”6 Dedicating three pages to describing him, Bancroft shows that Adams “received and held fast the opinions of the Fathers of New - England, that the colonies and England had a common king, but separate and independent legislatures.”7 This was Adams’ political creed and it motivated him in both writing and action. To Bancroft, Adams was the political leader in Boston that led the way to the Revolution. Already “famed as a political writer” before the passing of the Stamp Acts, Adams’ ability to “reconcile conflicting interests and promote harmony in action”8 helped him lead Boston into resisting Parliamentary action. Bancroft also shows that Adams’ religious faith played into his character that helped him become as influential as he was. As Bancroft stated, “his sublime and unfaltering hope had a cast of solemnity, and was as much a part of his nature as if his confidence sprung from insight into the divine decrees, and was as firm as a sincere Calvinist’s assurance of his election.”9 To Bancroft, Samuel Adams “set the example to other towns” to resist British encroachment of colonial rights and could be called “the last of the Puritans.”10 The first true biography of Samuel Adams was written by his great- grandson, William V. Wells published in 1865. In this detailed three volume 4 Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observations, vol. 1 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1805), 211. 5 Ibid., 212. 6 George Bancroft, History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the American Continent, vol. 5 (Boston: Little Brown, 1864-74), 194. 7 Ibid., 195. 8 Ibid., 196. 9 Ibid., 196-7. 10 Ibid., 197 and 329. account, Wells argues that Samuel Adams was the heroic force behind the movement towards revolution. Using numerous long quotes from primary sources, Wells believed that Adams wanted revolution because “fair representation in Parliament [was] utterly impossible.”11 This stemmed from Adams’ belief in direct representation and his involvement in the town government of Boston. Wells argues that Adams’ influence was not only in being a leader of the Massachusetts Assembly but also in his writings that were published by the press of Boston. Wells uses these to support his theory that Adams was the most influential leader in the beginning of the revolution. Though biased due to relation to Adams, Wells is the first biographer to attempt to place Adams as a true revolutionary leader and is important because of the gathering of primary sources, especially letters, in his books.12 In the second major biography of Samuel Adams, James K. Hosmer attempts to “estimate more fairly his character and that of his opponents” as opposed to Wells “filial piety.”13 In his Samuel Adams from 1885, Hosmer argues that Adams had always been fascinated by politics and easily stepped into a leadership position during the Revolution due to his previous involvement in government. Hosmer states that Adams was greatly influenced by the patriotism of politicians James Otis and Oxenbridge Thatcher. Though Adams had been involved in politics for several years regularly writing instructions for representatives of Boston, Adams did not come into prominence until the death of Thatcher which prompted a special election in which Adams won his first representative seat for Boston in the Massachusetts Assembly.14 For Hosmer, Adams was a man of the town meeting and his influence in the Massachusetts Assembly was an extension of his influence in the Boston town meeting. Hosmer states that in the town meetings, Adams was “the controlling mind of one town” while in the Massachusetts Assembly, he was the controlling mind of “all the Massachusetts towns, who, as it were, sat down together.”15 Hosmer argues that “Massachusetts led the thirteen colonies during the years preliminary to the Revolution” and that “Boston led Massachusetts” therefore it is clear to him that it was “Samuel Adams who led Boston.”16 Hosmer shows that 11 William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, vol. 1 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), 93. 12 William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, vol. 2 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), 11-17. 13 James K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1885), xiv-xv. 14 Ibid., 38-40. 15 Ibid., 53. 16 Ibid., 316. Samuel Adams was a man of Boston and through his service to Boston as a “fire-wa rd,…t ax-collector, moderator to the town meeting” and then his extension to his representation of Boston in the Massachusetts Assembly, Adams helped push America towards independence.17 Early twentieth century historians began to view history in more progressive and liberal terms. Historians sought to reevaluate history, especially what they saw as rich, white men’s history and viewing the founding fathers more critically. Therefore, there was a major shift in the interpretation of Samuel Adams, becoming highly critical of his actions. The first of these new analyses was Ralph Volney Harlow’s Samuel Adams, Promoter of the American Revolution: A Study in Psychology and Politics published in 1923. Looking at the “psychological side of revolution,” Harlow argues that Adams had an inferiority complex that caused him to become a zealot who manipulated the truth to direct the public.18 Harlow believed that Adams’ interest in politics was due to the fact that he had been a “failure in everything else” and “had found success in one field.”19 Using psychology, Harlow claims that Adams’ political strivings became more intense because of his failures elsewhere and his desire to make up for those failures. Harlow goes on to say that “Adams revealed a curious trait which is common to all neurotics” in that he made “an effort to redress the lack of balance in the objective world by constructing mental worlds” for himself.20 However, to Harlow, Adams was “one of the most important” leaders who “devoted [himself] to the task of convincing the people that they were oppressed, and in organizing them so that they could give point to their feeling.”21 Adams political influence had three distinct phases. First, he helped form a radical group in the legislature and brought it into power. This group was connected with the “controversy of the writs of assistance.”22 Second, this radical group created the tenets for revolution based mostly on democratic theory from Locke’s second essay on government. Finally, this group, with Adams leading it, spread these tenets through organizing with other colonies to “bring about a union of British North America.”23 Through these phases, Samuel Adams was able to spread his propaganda and agitate the colonies into rebellion. Harlow argues that Adams’ mental state led to him 17 Ibid., 317. 18 Ralph Volney Harlow, Samuel Adams, Promoter of the American Revolution: A Study in Psychology and Politics (New York: H. Holt and Company, 1923), ix. 19 Ibid., 169.