The Hypocritical Hagiographies of Harlow Giles Unger

Who Really Wrote The Monroe Doctrine? 
(And Who Not To Ask)

Cranking out a book a year since 2005, Harlow Giles Unger has been called “America’s Most Readable Historian.” One reason he’s so readable is because he doesn’t let boring things like facts get in the way of a good story.

When I chose to read his bio of James Monroe for my presidential biography project, I expected a little bias based on the reviews. What I didn’t expect was full-on hagiography.



In the first few pages, Unger sets up the case that Monroe was “the most beloved president after Washington” married to “America’s most beautiful and courageous First Lady,” and the other presidents since Washington – Adams, Jefferson, and Madison – were “mere caretaker presidents who left the nation bankrupt, its people deeply divided, its borders under attack, its capital city in ashes.”

Those were some big claims, but I was willing to strap in for the ride. Instead of the title “The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness,” I pretended it was called “Why James Monroe Is Awesome.”

That tactic was working out well until I came to one specific claim that flew in the face of everything I’d ever read. Unger claimed James Monroe was solely responsible for writing the Monroe Doctrine, and that John Quincy Adams had little if anything to do with it.

The Monroe Doctrine, in Unger’s words, “declared an end to foreign colonization in the New World and warned the Old World that the United States would no longer tolerate foreign incursions in the Americas.” It basically told Europe to stay out of the western hemisphere, and it still has impacts on our foreign policy today.

It’s widely known that Monroe’s Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, had a major role in authoring the policy as part of Monroe’s annual address to Congress in 1823. But Unger didn’t see it that way. He wrote:

“Contrary to the writings of some historians, Monroe’s proclamation was entirely his own – not Adams’s. The assertion that Adams authored the “Monroe Doctrine” is not only untrue; it borders on the ludicrous by implying that President Monroe was little more than a puppet manipulated by another’s hand. Such assertions show little insight into the presidency itself and the type of man who aspires to and assumes that office; indeed, they denigrate the character, the intellect, the intensity, and the sense of power that drive American presidents.”

Not only does he make a wildly contrarian claim, but he also shits all over most historians in the process. And his main point seems to be that only a president could write the Monroe Doctrine – certainly not John Quincy Adams, even though he became the next president.

1901 cartoon of Uncle Sam rooster sheltering the Latin chicks and keeping the Europeans out

Three years after publishing his Monroe biography, Unger released John Quincy Adams. His thoughts on the Monroe Doctrine’s authorship seem to have magically evolved, as if he cared more about lionizing whoever his subject was than being consistent.

Unger wrote that JQA “wrote the core provision of the Monroe Doctrine” which the president included “verbatim, in his annual message.” He went on to say that “Monroe embraced John Quincy’s political philosophy and formally closed the Western Hemisphere to further colonization.”

So, according to Unger, it’s ludicrous to think John Quincy Adams “authored” the Monroe Doctrine but he did “write” it. And even though it was based on Adams’s own political philosophy that Monroe embraced, the doctrine was entirely Monroe’s and not Adams’s.

I couldn’t understand how he could reconcile these contradictory opinions. So when I found out he was on Twitter, I decided to ask him.

I had no idea if he would answer, or if it was even him running his Twitter. (He’s 85 years old and it’s possible he has research assistants doing much of his work.) But someone did answer, and we had the following exchange.

So the following are all true:

  • The Monroe Doctrine was entirely Monroe’s and not Adams’s.
  • The Monroe Doctrine was not entirely Monroe’s.
  • Monroe and Adams worked together on the Monroe Doctrine.
  • They both wrote it by themselves. 

I have a hard time understanding how two people could collaborate so closely on something they both wrote all by themselves, but I was content to move on with my confusing lack of resolution. Like he said, there was no good reply. And what even is a Monroe Doctrine? I was afraid any further questions might result in Unger pulling a quarter out from behind my ear or disappearing in a puff a smoke.

Then another nugget was brought to my attention. Take a look at this vivid scene Unger paints of Monroe reading his annual address to Congress:

Emotional, right?

The problem is – it never happened. From Jefferson through Wilson, annual presidential addresses (which we now call the State of the Union) were delivered to Congress in writing. Not in person.

This address was read to Congress by a clerk. The walking down the aisle, the applause, the trembling – I can’t find any other explanation except it was completely made up.

I couldn’t help but ask Unger about this on Twitter.

Unger admits that Monroe didn’t read his annual address containing the Monroe Doctrine to Congress, but he still tries to claim his story is factual. I cannot find any record of Monroe addressing Congress in person except at his inaugurals, which both happened years earlier. I asked Unger for his source for this, and he has yet to respond. If he (or anyone) can come up with some little-known Congressional tremble-party, I will gladly update this article.

One Amazon reviewer of Unger’s biography of the Marquis de Lafayatte said, “Just about every page you turn you say to yourself…. ‘Are you kidding?’” A reviewer of his John Quincy Adams bio wrote, “The first part of the book resulted in me thinking, ‘This guy was too good to have been a mortal.’ I began to feel as if the author is biased in favor of Adams.”

It’s not a good sign when your readers’ lasting impression is their own incredulous inner monologues.

Unger is inadvertently creating an army of evangelists for his subjects and arming them with hyperbolic half-cocked trivia designed to be discharged at dinner parties. He plays fast and loose with the details in a way you would expect in a film adaptation – not in a biography.

That said, his books are compelling and entertaining, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t jealous of his prolificness and success. I admire the passion that comes through in his prose, and his mission to educate people about the American founders. I hope he keeps cranking out biographies as long as possible, but I’d prefer he do it with research assistants and editors who help him keep it real.

I’d really prefer if he could be more of an impassioned reporter with journalistic integrity than a cheerleader.

Until then, I can only recommend his biographies for people who don’t require truth and objectivity in their nonfiction. Read Unger on the beach or airplane, but take him the same way you would a shot of aged tequila – with several grains of salt.


The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call To Greatness by Harlow Giles Unger

John Quincy Adams by Harlow Giles Unger
John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life by Paul Nagel

Open Letters Monthly: “He hit the Constitution much as the Lord hit chaos” by Thomas J Daly

Special thanks to The American History Fanatics Facebook group



  1. jenmoon
    April 29, 2017 / 2:53 am

    Hah, I only read the Monroe fanboy book, had no idea he kept doing this AND making up shit. Wowza. Thanks for the info and the attempted questioning!

    • Howard Dorre
      September 21, 2017 / 3:29 am

      Thanks for reading! Attempted questionings are my specialty.

  2. John Biles
    October 9, 2017 / 6:30 am

    The only biography of Monroe I ever read portrayed him as a blithering idiot who basically got the presidency riding the coat-tails of other, more competent people. It literally starts with him being flogged for skipping school to go hunting with a buddy.

    • Howard Dorre
      October 9, 2017 / 8:03 pm

      Wow! What biography was that? Sounds a bit harsh. I don't quite buy into that Monroe-as-Forrest-Gump narrative — if he was really a bumbling fool I think he would have made a lot more mistakes.

      • Tim Schmidt
        February 9, 2022 / 10:28 pm

        I would also like to know what biography John is talking about. There are actually very few biographies of Monroe and, in my reading, most historians don’t bother to write about someone they think is crap. Perhaps that is why it is hard to find anything about Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Regardless, many “readable” historians pain a dramatic picture with details that would be impossible to notice. These examples you site, are pretty egregious but whatever. His audience is not serious researchers… they would not be citing sources of someone that is cranking out a new book every year about a different topic. He is cranking out approachable information for the masses and should be read as such. And in the case of Monroe? There are not a lot of options… with or without the salt.

  3. TML
    November 20, 2017 / 3:30 pm

    Dude! I am in the middle of this book and I totally agree. I can't really trust anything beyond the general facts. I mean you expect a biographer to like their subject, but not to treat them as the second coming of Jesus. I only settled on this bio because it was the only one I could get as a downloadable audio book. I've spent the last 1.5 years working my way through bios of the revolutionary war, first 4 presidents, and other associated people. This one almost laughably trashes EVERYONE, even George Washington until Monroe reads the bio of him by Marshall and decides to try and be the 2nd coming of GW as president. "your readers’ lasting impression is their own incredulous inner monologues" is totally astute.

    • Howard Dorre
      November 20, 2017 / 9:23 pm

      Thank you! It's hard to imagine an audio book version, unless the reader goes all-in and pauses throughout to give deep "he's so dreamy!" sighs.I look forward to a biography someday that takes a deeper look at Monroe – touting his impressive resume without fawning over him.

  4. Unknown
    December 7, 2017 / 4:43 am

    You are too funny! And too wicked! Unger is the Walt Disney of Revolutionary War and early Americana history. It’s all a mash-up of America, America God Shed His Light On Thee and Downtown Abbey!

  5. Schroeswald
    September 2, 2018 / 4:35 pm

    Oh this isn’t his worst, read John Marshall and Richard Henry Lee. John Marshall sort of sucked but besides it being John Marshall Is Awesome it wasn’t the worst. He uses the anti federalist argument in RHL, and even better the ones that I can debunk, he also had a section where I have no clue the votes because they keep changing the total and say 31-29 means you need three votes for the 29 to win

  6. Mary
    March 3, 2019 / 8:06 am

    I just finished American Tempest – it was such an entertaining read that I did not put it down and pick up a factual book. Had to go on-line and see if I was the only one who was sucked in by his writing skills and appalled by his lack of facts. Temped to read some of his other works when I need a break from learning but worried that my brain might retain some of his nonsense as fact.

    • Howard Dorre
      April 23, 2019 / 10:18 pm

      I know what you mean about your brain retaining nonsense — in this Monroe bio he mentions that Napoleon kidnapped the Pope to be at his coronation. I haven’t been able to substantiate that, but now it’s always in my mind.

  7. AKS
    June 2, 2021 / 12:08 pm

    Same here, had to go online to see if this guy is legit and come across this article which totally confirmed my suspicion that he is not. I am reading his book on Henry Clay and had read Brand’s biography of President Jackson previously and things did not make sense. Sure enough Unger is not factual. He should not be regarded a historian!

    • Howard Dorre
      June 4, 2021 / 11:46 am

      Did Henry Clay single-handedly save America AND write the Monroe Doctrine?

  8. B T C
    September 11, 2022 / 8:52 am

    Found this page a few hours into listening to his Henry Clay bio. So many unsubstantiated claims… and I was wondering if he was a lost cause historian because a lot of how he is discussing slavery is pretty cringe.

  9. KEVIN Timothy LUSARDI
    February 11, 2023 / 3:01 pm

    Is his work on Thomas Paine also in question?

    • Howard Dorre
      February 20, 2023 / 8:40 pm

      I haven’t read his Paine biography. Does Thomas Paine singlehandedly save democracy and are all those opposed to him fools?

  10. James Pappas
    May 31, 2023 / 10:43 am

    I’ve really enjoyed reading all the comments about Ungar.
    I find his John Hancock book interesting reading, but his amount of animus toward Samuel Adams astounds me!
    He disrespects Samuel ( not Sam) throughout. Not sure who the book is really about, sometimes. I have his RHL book too. It’s my last of his work.

  11. November 6, 2023 / 10:46 pm

    I too got a wild hair around 2005 to read a bio on each president chronologically, but was so enthralled with all the dynamics around the American Revolution, I stayed in that time period. Being an AR enthusiast, I’ve read many Unger books and laughed out loud when I began rereading Monroe, Googled hagiography Monroe Unger and landed at this great blog.

Leave a Reply