The Treaty of Paris, adopted at the end of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), transferred control of Canada from France to Britain. After the United States later declared independence from Britain, France began offering secret support to the Patriots in the forms of arms, ammunition, economic aid, and technical assistance. Although the French government did not support Native Americans against the United States, some of the French Canadians (Canadiens) who had remained in Canada after the British takeover fought alongside Native American allies against the Patriots.

After acquiring Canada, the British had treated the Canadiens mildly. They allowed the former French citizens to continue practicing their Roman Catholic religion, and although the British required all residents of Canada to use the common law for public and criminal issues, they retained French civil law for private legal matters.

These measures helped the British to win the loyalty of many French Canadians. At the beginning of the Revolution, an American raid on Fort St. Jean, not far from Montreal, alarmed British officials and turned some Montreal residents against the Patriots. America’s wartime exclusion from the British fur trade benefited Montreal merchants, and despite lingering resentment over Britain’s possession of their colony, they decided that their own business interests lay with the preservation of British ties. Other French Canadians followed their religious and political leaders to the British side. Americans, after all, were the same people the Canadiens had just fought in the French and Indian War, when British New Englanders committed such atrocities as seizing farms, livestock, and produce, and stabling horses in their Catholic churches. Canadiens believed that they were better off with the British conquerors than with the American Revolutionaries.

In the territory bordering Canada and the new United States, the Six Nations of the Iroquois were also forced to make decisions with regard to alliances. Although many preferred to remain neutral, Tuscaroras and Oneidas generally chose to ally with the Americans. The rest of the Six Nations, led by the Mohawks, supported the British. Molly Brant, a respected Mohawk and mistress to British Indian Superintendent Sir William Johnson, and her brother Mohawk war chief Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea), convinced the Mohawk to side with the British. In several battles, Iroquois warriors, British regulars, and Canadien militia fought together to retain control over territory far down into Ohio Country and into the area around present-day Detroit.

Although some Canadiens fought with the British, others fought with the Patriots. For example, the 1st Canadian Regiment included Canadiens sympathetic to the American cause. They saw action in the Battles of Quebec (1775), Trois-Rivieres (1776), and Saratoga (1777), among others.

A number of presidential historians have come to a consensus regarding the qualities that so-called great presidents have exhibited. For example, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. distinguishes great presidents as those who "possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America." Another historian, Robert Dallek, similarly states "every effective president had a vision or even a series of visions about where he wished to lead the country." In addition to possessing a vision for the nation, great presidents have succeeded in establishing what Schlesinger describes as "a deep psychic connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of people." They have achieved this bond using education and persuasion to convince Americans to consent to their own vision of the nation's future. Dallek correspondingly writes that effective presidents have needed to found their policies "on a shared national perception of what served the country's well-being." James MacGregor Burns likewise links leadership to the creation of a "collective purpose" measured "by the satisfaction of human needs and expectations."

In addition to vision, Schlesinger observes that while moments of crisis have presented presidents with "opportunities for bold and imaginative action," even without such crises, "forceful and persuasive presidents—Jefferson, Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan—are able to impose their own priorities on the country." Dallek adds pragmatism and credibility as essential qualities of the most effective presidents.

Using the above mentioned criteria, John Adams has not traditionally been viewed as one of the great presidents of the United States. Much of the lingering criticism of Adams can be traced to his re-election campaign of 1800, which he lost to Thomas Jefferson, becoming the nation's first one-term president. During the campaign, he was criticized by both the Republicans, who supported Jefferson, and his own party, the Federalists. Popular historian David McCullough has described the campaign, which resulted in Thomas Jefferson's ascendancy to the presidency, as "a contest of personal vilification surpassing any presidential election in American history." During the 1800 campaign, Adams was called a monarchist, a warmonger, and an indecisive leader during wartime. He was tarred as a vain eccentric with an "ungovernable temper." He was attacked for his conservative outlook and for his tendency to act irresponsibly and capriciously without consulting his cabinet and advisors. His enemies spread rumors that he was insane, and like Jefferson, he was branded as a libertine.

Adams was also blamed both for actions he took during his term in office and for a supposed turn in political philosophy to favor aristocracy and monarchy over republicanism and democracy due to his opposition to the French Revolution. During the subsequent "quasi-war" with France, Adams's signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which he did not initiate, became a liability that tarnished his reputation. His call for new taxes and the creation of a standing army alienated many at the time. With Jefferson's victory characterized as the "Revolution of 1800," Adams's association with the extinguished Federalist party has been proof for many that he was on the wrong side of history.

However, recent biographies have sought to reconsider Adams and his legacy. One biographer, John Patrick Diggins, believes that the assessment of Adams "as something of a loser" stems from a misunderstanding of the legacies of both Adams and Jefferson. Another, C. Bradley Thompson, contends that Adams was consistent in his political thought and did not adopt anti-republican views as his enemies had charged. In addition, John Ferling emphasizes Adams's decision to send a peace mission to France despite opposition within his administration and party—an action that many believe cost him the 1800 election—as not only "a courageous deed, an act of statesmanship that saved countless lives," but as an act that "spared the new nation unimaginable dangers—dangers to the survival of its republican experiment as well as to the very existence of the Union." These authors and others assert that Adams's success at preserving the nation's liberty despite his failings as a political leader point to his enduring legacy. However, some of the lingering criticism stems from Adams himself, writing, "I am not, never was, & never shall be a great man."