Nonfiction // Hamilton's Curse - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution - and What It Means for Americans Today
Author: Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Genre: Nonfiction//History
I'll be honest: there was no way I could go into this book without bias. I only touched and skimmed it because of an acquaintance of mine who loves to joshingly poke fun at my historical focus. However, I have no problems with books criticizing historical figures or politicians, even those I like (ask me my thoughts on the "Letter Concerning John Adams"); that is, as long as it's founded on historical fact and reason. I would have expected this book to come out of the pen of James T. Callender rather than modern day with as much as it disregards history. You know those books that serve no other purpose than to slam politicians that don't hold political views similar to the author's? The books that distort context to make it seem like President Obama will be the next Hitler or former President Bush was the anti-christ? This is one of those books.
What's probably worse is that this book is written by an economist; someone who should know better. He presents federal assumption as something that "saddled" the Americans with horrible debt; He doesn't discuss how the assumption cemented the states into a nation, and how it distributed taxation so that one group wouldn't be oppressed. Good luck finding anything on the sinking fund that enable the United States to be completely rid of its national debt by the 1830s. Then there is information that he just gets wrong; Hamilton's Bank of the United States couldn't be responsible for the booms and busts of the late 1800s. President Jackson had already killed the national bank (pushing us into a depression that may have been worse than the Great one). DiLorenzo believes we missed the opportunity to follow Jefferson's plans for America - the one that involved us all becoming small farmers (what slavery?) and not the diverse economy we now have. This is an economist, mind you. An economist teaching that an agrarian society is best and central banks are detestable.
DiLorenzo also seems to have something against federal courts and judicial review, and considers them somehow eviscerating to our liberties. Don't expect to find any merits of judicial review, such as how it desegregated the South, in his work. He doesn't hide his hatred of Hamilton's idea of "implied powers" given by the Constitution; I suppose it's good for his thesis that he didn't look into President Louisiana Purchase's actions. I think Jefferson was a brilliant man, but economically misguided and had the hardest time practicing what he preached; if DiLorenzo wanted to present anything resembling a fair view, he would not have glossed over these faults. The Founders, like all men, were imperfect. There were no "good" and "evil" distinctions.
He digs up the old "Hamilton was a monarchist," which has no basis in fact, for refuge. Ignoring not only history, DiLorenzo shows his ignorance in political science. You can't elect a king; so a president, even once holding office on good behavior (what Hamilton wanted in the Constitutional Convention), isn't a monarch. A powerful executive does not negate republican ideals. He even mentions the "great beast" quote - which no historian worth her salt believes nowadays, knowing its hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. What happened to scholarly merit? There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but you should have the educational responsibility to use credible means of getting your opinion across.
This isn't a conservative book; that would demean real conservatives who understand basic means of writing in historical context, knowing how to present balanced material and not skip over contradicting evidence when it doesn't suit your thesis. This book is Fox News conservative work.
If anyone wants a fair criticism of Hamilton, pick up McCullough's John Adams. It's indirect, and shows the perspective of a man who despised him, but with a good biographer's careful work.
Also, archenemy? Really? Certainly Jefferson and Hamilton passionately disliked each other, but at the end of the day, they were divided by partisan politics; serious business.