John Adams often groused that the true history of the American Revolution would never be written. Considering this, it is somewhat surprising that he did not undertake the task himself. He had ample time after his Presidency, and his lively and copious correspondence indicates that age had not lessened his skill with a pen. It is possible that he simply viewed it as an impossible task, as he indicated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on July 30, 1815:
Dear Sir Quincy July 30th 1815
Who shall write the history of the American revolution? Who can write it? Who will ever be able to write it?
The most essential documents, the debates & deliberations in Congress from 1774 to 1783 were all in secret, and are now lost forever. Mr Dickinson printed a speech, which he said he made in Congress against the Declaration of Independence; but it appeared to me very different from that, which you, and I heard. Dr Witherspoon has published speeches which he wrote beforehand, and delivered Memoriter, as he did his Sermons. But these I believe, are the only speeches ever committed to writing. The Orators, while I was in Congress from 1774 to 1778 appeared to me very universally extemporaneous, & I have never heard of any committed to writing before or after delivery.
These questions have been suggested to me, by a Review, in the Analectic Magazine for May 1815, published in Philadelphia, page 385 of the Chevalier Botta’s “Storia della Guerra Americana.” The Reviewers inform us, that it is the best history of the revolution that ever has been written. This Italian Classick has followed the example, of the Greek and Roman Historians, by composing speeches, for his Generals and Orators. The Reviewers have translated, one of Mr R H Lee, in favour of the declaration of Independence. A splendid morcell of oratory it is; how faithful, you can judge.
I wish to know your sentiments, and opinions of this publication. Some future Miss Porter, may hereafter, make as shining a romance, of what passed in Congress, while in Conclave, as her Scottish Chiefs.
John Adams
History is the poorer for Adams not undertaking the task. If he had done so, I hope he would have held off publication until after his death, to allow full reign to acerbic comments about the men and events of the foundation of America, and a jaundiced eye at some of the mythmaking about those days, which was already in full swing before the death of Adams. He memorably noted that “facts are stubborn things”, and it would have been quite entertaining and instructive to have his view of the stubborn facts that led to the creation of a new nation.
Oh, Adams account would have just been “anecdotal evidence”, which we all know is completely useless and very suspect.
Much better for the men of another age to analyze events, having never lived among those who created and opposed such events, the customs and manner of speech of that age being at best a second language to them.
We know this from every revisionist expert, from Luther on down.
Side note: Adams himself evolved into a bit of an autocrat after his election to the presidency. His support of the Alien and Sedition Act and his opposition to the critical press of the day do not reflect well on his early support of independence. Probably best he did not further the contradiction with his version of the struggle for the nation.
The press of the day were party organs that routinely engaged in defamation out of whole cloth. Most of the Founding Fathers had little use for the press in practice, no matter how much they championed it in theory. After Jefferson was elected in 1800, he allowed the acts to lapse, and pardoned those convicted under them.