John Quincy Adams The author of this report is asked to answer to one major question relating to John Quincy Adams, He had great success as Secretary of State but was not nearly as successful as President of the United States. The author is asked to ascertain why he might have done so well in the former role but so mediocre to poor in the latter role. This report will offer analysis based on personal conjecture and scholarly sources.

At first glance, the author of this report would offer a personal opinion. Secretary of States and President, at least in a more modern context, are entirely different jobs with the depth and breadth of the President's office being much more massive and expansive than Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, in modern days, is a catch-all ambassador and representative of the President's foreign policy and is indeed supposed to be a voice of the President. In contrast, the office of the President is responsible for guiding the Secretary of State's actions and void as well as the voices and actions of other departments like the Armed...

Perhaps the main reason for this failure was that he was unable to flourish when he was the "final say" on a decision rather than having a supervisor that could rein him in if he was making a rash decision. For example, the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Ghent were an example of this in action as both sides made initial demands that did not match up to what was in their best interest.
One example, perhaps, of Adams perhaps being too good at diplomacy and negotiation was the fact that one of Adams' adversaries in the 1824 election, that being Henry Clay, becoming his secretary of state was a sign that he paid off people to be his allies.

Indeed, Andrew Jackson seemed on his way to winning the office and then Clay siphoned his votes to Adams and the latter ended…