Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today

In Summary: This book is a heavily biased revision of history. Dilorenzo not only slanders Hamilton in this book, but also George Washington. Dilorenzo fails to go through Hamilton's writings and explain the alleged dangers of Hamilton's ideas, preferring instead to rest himself on the conclusions of other authors, instead of coming to his own. Dilorenzo also seems to make some contradictory statements concerning the nature of the Revolution and its supporters. Dilorenzo also fails to notice how Jefferson and Madison, went back on their own "convictions" upon their rise to the presidency. Jefferson dispensed with "strict construction" when he purchased Louisiana from Napoleon, and he dispensed with his claim that the government should have nothing to do with national trade when he pushed the Embargo Act. Madison too dispensed with his qualms about a national bank when he pushed the Second Bank of the United States and the War of 1812 which made the Bank more acceptable. I read the preview here on Google. Generally, I prefer to do that before I spend my limited funds on books (which tend to be expensive). Let me say that I am a Constitutionalist. I believe in a federal government limited by that document. I also believe in the original intent of the Founding Fathers. I am willing to have my views about the Founders challenged, and that is why I read this book. I do not believe that the Federal Reserve System is a good system, nor do I believe it is something that Hamilton -- or any of the Founders -- would approve of today. However, I have studied the Founding Era for over five years, through the primary sources. I have read the works of famous writers on the subject. I have critically examined the writings, lives, and characters of some of our Founders, including Hamilton and Jefferson -- again, through their writings, and through the writings of their contemporaries. And I am very disappointed that Dilorenzo does not seem to have done this. If he has, he has blatantly deceived his audience in this book. But one does not need to be an expert to see through the deceit of this book. Hamilton is portrayed as scheming to create a huge centralized government for his own personal profit. And yet Dilorenzo fails to mention that Hamilton was one of the poorest of the Founders. Hamilton never owned his own home until 1802 -- two years before he died! By this time, he and his wife (who had seven children, their eldest was killed the year before in a duel) were well into their forties. Dilorenzo claims that Hamilton was one of the men most responsible for our having the Constitution -- out of motives to replace the Articles of Confederation with a tyrannical government of course. Hamilton was a framer, signer, and ratifier of this document (The Federalist Papers, widely acclaimed by all the Founders, including Jefferson, was mainly Hamilton's work). Dilorenzo proceeds to say, that Hamilton shredded the Constitution to pieces during Washington's Administration. Dilorenzo fails to give an adequate explanation for the good relationship between Washington and Hamilton. He admits that Washington supported Hamilton's financial policy. Dilorenzo's explanation? So that Washington could enjoy a view of the new capital from his home at Mount Vernon. Would you believe that the Father of our Country, who led us through the American Revolution, presided over the Constitutional Convention, and with great trepidation and solemnity carried out the duty of being our nation's first President would sign such a hotly-contested bill determining the fate of future generations -- simply to enjoy the view of the capital city from his front porch?!?!?!? Yet Dilorenzo does not shrink from making this audacious claim. Dilorenzo brushes aside the claim (which has been proven) that Hamilton wrote Washington's Farewell Address, claiming that it was "said to be" ghostwritten by Hamilton. The fact is, the Washington-Hamilton correspondence, and the drafts of the Address in

This one-sided book is a good example of how one might read our early history if one only sees neoliberalism as the single alternative ideology to libertarian conservatism. It's a primer on popular conservative thought, that idolizes the libertarian in our forebears without acknowledging their anachronistic and "landed gentry" failings. The truth of our history is a lot more complex, but this raises the good points of one side of the argument, ignoring the fact that corporate interests would be even more out of control if the naive laissez-faire policies of the Jeffersonians were in place. Worst of all, it completely misrepresents the work of Keynes and ignores the valid concerns and ideas of progressives and democratic socialists.

An interesting in-depth look at Hamilton's political philosophy on how it did more harm than good to our country it's still going on today.