Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

In Hamilton's Curse, author Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo traces the roots of America's economic and political systems to the first secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. We are truly living in "Hamilton's Republic," says Dr. DiLorenzo -- but this is far from a good thing.

While it is Thomas Jefferson's face that graces Mount Rushmore, and tremendous lip service is paid to his greatness as a political thinker and president, in reality, Jefferson's ideas have been entirely marginalized, while those of his arch rival Hamilton now form the backbone of the American political establishment. The Revolution of 1776 was a Jeffersonian Revolution to throw off the yoke of British mercantilist imperialism and install it its place a voluntary union of free and independent states. Hamilton and his acolytes, however -- no matter how bravely and earnestly they fought against the Red Coats -- wanted to import British mercantilism to America with the U.S. aristocracy (Hamilton and his Federalist buddies) on the receiving end of the mercantilist spoils system. In fact, DiLorenzo argues that the Constitution itself was a virtual coup against the free republic of the Articles of Confederation for the purpose of increasing the authority of the central government -- key to Hamilton's plans.

But Hamilton couldn't create the unitary nationalist government in one fell swoop. Indeed, his plans to install a permanent president -- an American king -- with the power to appoint state governors and veto state legislation failed miserably. But as soon as the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton (who argued the pseudo-Jeffersonian case for its ratification in the Federalist Papers) set about subverting it. It was Hamilton who invented the concept of "implied powers."

Hamilton had George Washington's ear, and while historians act as if our first president was an "independent," the fact is that he almost(?) exclusively appointed Federalists -- meaning men who supported ratification of the Constitution -- to the bench. These were by and large men who simply wanted to increase the federal government's power over the states, and thus America was on the wrong path from the onset of the first presidency. The Federalist near-monopoly on the judicial system gave Hamiltonianism a foothold even as it suffered electoral defeat after electoral defeat -- starting with the election of Hamilton's arch rival Thomas Jefferson to the White House.

Indeed, it wasn't until the War Between the States, as DiLorenzo calls it, that Hamiltonianism -- which had lost on the battlefield of ideas -- was installed on the actual battlefield, by brute military force. Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican, and the Whigs were the ideological descendants of Hamilton's Federalists. With Lincoln as their standard bearer, the new Republican Party had a full-fledged Hamiltonian agenda consisting of protectionism, high taxation, national centralism, corporate welfare, militarism, and national banking. These were the true issues over which the "Civil War" was fought, says DiLorenzo.

The Hamiltonian Republicans reigned over America almost uninterrupted for the next 52 years, until Woodrow Wilson -- a Hamiltonian of the Left -- was elected. Under Wilson, Hamiltonianism reached its zenith (or nadir), as the income tax, direct election of senators, and Federal Reserve all came into existence. Entirely gone was the Jeffersonian republic of "states' rights." DiLorenzo also says that the American "Progressives" who brought about these horrors were directly influenced by the German Historical School -- which itself was strongly influenced by Hamilton. Thus, things came full circle.

DiLorenzo concludes this wonderful book with a road-map to ending the curse. Unfortunately, I have virtually zero faith that Americans are ever going to wake up and reassert Jeffersonian principles. As DiLorenzo explains, we now have several generations who have been taught Hamiltonian/Lincolnian myths in institutionalized schooling to the point that both the Left and the Right view Hamilton as a great hero. In reality, he was perhaps the greatest scoundrel in American history. If only Aaron Burr's bullet could have spared the man but killed his wicked ideas!

DiLorenzo has made a difficult subject readable. It is an American political economic history covering a period from the Ratification Debates to the present. It is told from the contrasting viewpoints of Jefferson and Hamilton, as to the political system which the secession from England was meant to create.

For me, it covered new ground and reinterpreted well some ground I thought I had understood. It is both chronological and topical history. The author's use of original and secondary sources added to its value. All of which made it a fruitful present exercise and a tool for future reference.

As has been noted by other reviewers, it has special present circumstance value. National Bank/Federal Reserve Bank is the pivot point of today's rational pessimism. And it is the legacy of Alexander Hamilton. Greed comes with human seed; Hamilton's ideology centralized it.

I suppose, in the dark history of "democracy" and its variants, one could have drawn the baseline with Solon or Pericles. However, in the uniquely American variant of a "democratic" social contract, it is Hamilton's legacy that needs scrutiny. And DiLorenzo delivered such fully.

Whether it is the Supreme Court, The Fed, regulatory practices, the income tax, direct election of Senators, protectionism, or standing armies, Hamilton is the genesis. Our "Great Experiment" had a frightful beginning, a precarious middle and, obviously, might have an oligarchic end. We had a chance to design a system based on Jefferson's theories, but we have chosen otherwise. Perhaps we're cursed by Hamilton.

Robert Higgs, one of the many fine writers referenced in this book, asked himself in print recently: have we been led by fools or mountebanks? He answered: yes! And in reading this great book, I thought often that Hamilton might be both.

is to show the effects of ideas upon society. DiLorenzo's book compares the ideas of Alexander Hamilton with those of Thomas Jefferson, and shows how the effects of Hamilton's ideas have triumphed through to the present. DiLorenzo convincingly describes how the US is a Hamiltonian state, meaning it's highly centralized, with a politicized monetary system, an aggressive and powerful tax collection system, and a judicial monarchy of unelected, life-appointed lawyers that historically have not acted as a check on legislative and executive powers. The author points out from 1937 to 1995 the Supreme Court has not ruled any federal legislation to be unconstitutional. DiLorenzo states that "...any reasonabley clever lawyer can dream up myriad hypothetical situations to justify virtually any kind of government action." Pg. 179.

DiLorenzo is extremely conservative in his political and economic views, if conservative means limited government. He states "Hamilton was the godfather of economic interventionism and big government." The author explains why both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum are enamored with Hamilton's views, and why it is ironic that Hamilton's influence is most appreciated by conservatives. Hamilton believed in the partnership of businesses and government. The author makes a case that economic instability is a consequence of Hamilton's policies of centralization and taxation, and believes the central banking Federal Reserve is detrimental to stability, especially with the lack of backing of `specie' (gold or other hard assets). This point is also asserted by Murray Rothbard in "What Has the Government Done With Our Money?"

DiLorenzo wryly observes it's fitting that Hamilton's statue is in the front of the US Treasury Department. Hamilton wanted a strong central government, and he advocated debt financing and taxation. DiLorenzo shows how Hamilton's ideas have flourished and today have extended ramifications from what Hamilton envisioned.

In his final chapter, the author calls for a `devolution of power' - increasing the abilities of the states to determine the federal laws and regulations, because he believes the people are not now sovereign over their government. Power should be stripped away from the federal judiciary, and there should be more opportunities for third party candidates. The author states the 16th amendment to the Constitution (the income tax) should be repealed. This astonishing recommendation, which is echoed in Ron Paul's "The Revolution - A Manifesto" deserves more discussion than the author provides. DiLorenzo might have discussed in more detail globalization and international trade, and I also think he might have explored how the influences of the internet on disseminating information might enable the transformation to decentralized power, but those discussions would lengthen this book significantly.

Hamilton's Curse provides many topical and thought provoking insights into the history of US political and economic ideas from 1800 to the present. This book effectively shows how Hamilton's ideas oppose Jefferson's ideas of limited, decentralized government, which Jefferson believed needed to be `small and localized' to protect individual liberty.

I heard about this book when Prof. DiLorenzo was interviewed on "Pro Business With Dr. Mike Beitler," a free-market, libertarian internet-radio show. Frankly, I had no idea that what weseeing today (central banking out of control, government intervention in every aspect of our lives) is rooted in the vision of Alexander Hamilton. This book made me realize the difference between Hamilton's vsion and Jefferson's vision. Fascinating reading!

Christina C.

Thomas DiLorenzo has written a basic introduction to the effects of Alexander Hamilton's policies on the United States, placing Mr. H in a role unfamiliar to the average graduate of a typical United States high school. It is an interesting read, and certainly different from most political histories you have read.

Mr. DiLorenzo begins by casting Hamilton in a light not often taught in American Government classes - Hamilton as a scheming, heavily political actor who brought about a heavy-handed government quite different from the principles he espoused in the Federalist Papers. To be honest, this interpretation is fair but incongruous, in that it is quite different from what I was taught in high school. However, it is difficult to differentiate Mr. D's portrayal from the historical record. Hamilton, from what I have read recently, was a bit more ambitious than the author of the Federalist Papers portrayed in high school government. He wanted power, and often got what he wanted.

Jefferson, the most famous resident in Charlottesville, can do no wrong in DiLorenzo's eyes, at least insofar as the argument between centralized and diffused power is concerned. Jefferson favored a light federal government, with power diffused in the direction of those who would deal with it most often - that is, in the direction of the people. Hamilton favored a strong central government, and the policies he implemented and favored while Treasury Secretary laid the foundation of the American Empire, as DiLorenzo argues. Those foundations are three.

First, what could be described as implication, the political theory that the federal government holds powers implied by its explicit powers but never enumerated, therefore implicit. Second, a central bank, which would provide for the expansion of monetary supply necessary to finance Hamilton's Empirical ideal for America. Third, mercantilism, or the preference of government towards merchants via favorable tax policies and tariffs. Each of these, DiLorenzo argues, helped tear down the Jeffersonian view of limited government and build the Hamiltonian vision of a British-like empire, greater than its predecessor. Jefferson and his successors had their time in the limelight, but it ended with the death blow known as the Civil War. The body didn't hit the floor until 1913, which DiLorenzo refers to as the "Hamiltonian Revolution" of that year. The Hamiltonian cause was advanced by Lincoln, sealed by Wilson, and made permanent by Franklin Roosevelt.

DiLorenzo has made a good outline of a libertarian argument, but falls short in some areas. For example, on page 169 he writes "The immediate results [of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913] were disastrous for America. These new funding mechanisms allowed Woodrow Wilson to plunge America disastrously into the European war, a war that provided no benefits to America but exacted a tremendous cost in terms of blood and treasure" - as if the Zimmerman Telegram had nothing to do with things. The book could have been twice as long as its 209 pages and just as easy to read; trimming the book for brevity's sake has resulted in weaker arguments, especially in the last chapter. That being said, it is a good introduction to the effects of centralizing relatively unlimited governmental power.

This is not a book for libertarians. DiLorenzo's arguments are at many times weak and flawed, which means that a libertarian reading this book would have his beliefs reinforced poorly, instead of challenged and supported by well-founded reasoning. Nor is this a book for liberals, who would dismiss it as the rantings of a right-wing kook who favors a repeal of the 13th Amendment (even though DiLorenzo would probably favor a repeal of the 14th Amendment). This is a book for conservatives, especially those disappointed by the recent election and wondering where the Republican Party went wrong. Those who hold their nose while voting for McCain (like me) will find a good starting point for reexamining their political foundations. Although he argues poorly against the current state of affairs in some sections, it is still highly readable and easily understandable. The result is a set of correct conclusions arrived at via incorrect but useful reasoning. I would give it 3.5 stars out of 5.

It isn't often that a book is released that contains historical insight into prominent Americans through the scrutinizing lens of an economist. As DiLorenzo did with Abraham Lincoln (In The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked) we are treated to an objective view of who Alexander Hamilton was and what his ideals cultivated for our great country.

Chapter by chapter the author pits the views of Hamilton and his allies against the Jeffersonian side of our founders' ideology; and ultimately shows that while it is Jefferson who is most recognized to this day it is ultimately Hamilton's economic ideas and policies that won over in the end.

At no other point in history would this book be more important than it is now. With the various financial crises facing the United States, and the world over, we owe it to ourselves to understand what got us where we are. One could read much about economics and current issues to figure out the basic wrong doings of our government, but to truly grasp what shaped our country and pushed our ideally small government with checks and balances between the various powers into the leviathan empire it is we need to inspect who sowed the seeds for such "big government" ideals.

Depicted throughout the book is Hamilton's core message of promoting "the common good," a deed that Jefferson so rightly did not believe big government was capable of accomplishing. Hamilton's Curse details how the Hamiltonian mantra of the "american system" (mercantilism) and vast government powers were defeated early in the country's founding but ultimately crept back often and persevered even after Hamilton's death.

This is a great read and towards the end might almost panic the reader about where our country is heading but the final chapter "Ending the Curse" is surprisingly uplifting and instills optimism. I recommend this for anyone interested in understanding today's economy, individual liberty, or learning the truth about a revered American icon.

This is a must read for anyone who is a fan of DiLorenzo's other works as well as anyone who is a fan of Ron Paul and the Austrian school of economic thought.

Thomas DiLorenzo forces readers to rethink the role of government in this American journey from revolution to modern times. Framed as a discussion of Alexander Hamilton and his lasting influence, this book is not a biography. DiLorenzo masterfully blends economics and history to denounce Hamilton's core ideals of central banking, government regulation, and national debt. He decries 'mercantilism' while espousing free market ideals across the last two hundred years.

One of the greatest successes of this book, is the compelling argument that Hamilton's ideals were not those that formed the foundation of the country. They are, however, the ideals that have taken hold in our current $10 trillion debt-holding, over-regulating, federal reserve interfering, centralized regime. DiLorenzo does a great job of explaining how we got here.

On the negative side, the Hamilton theme seemed a little (actually a lot) forced at times with tenuous connections. For example, Teddy Roosevelt was an "admirer of Hamilton". Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer... and Hamilton was a lawyer (a fact DiLorenzo pops in way too often). If all else fails, DiLorenzo just finds someone, somewhere, who at some time referred to a person or policy as "Hamiltonian". There were several times I found myself quite literally rolling my eyes at the forced 'connections'.

On the really negative side, I believe he was dishonest in his denunciation of the incorporation doctrine (the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to the states). He states:

"The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of the federal government, period. (this is actually true) But political activists who are appointed as federal judges have made an end run around the constitutional amendment process by simply declaring that the Bill of Rights should also apply to the states."

That second line is flat out misleading. At no point in his short incorporation discussion does he even mention the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Am. is the ENTIRE basis for the doctrine. There was a civil war and then the states ratified the 14th amendment which explicitly protects individuals from certain state infringements. We could debate all day what it actually protects... but incorporation was not some sporadic declaration. This leaves me a little concerned. If he strategically omitted such an important (the single most important) fact about the incorporation doctrine... what else was he not-so-honest about?

Despite my protestations, I really enjoyed the book. It's one of those books that will really challenge you to think, whether you agree or disagree with the author's clear agenda. He tosses in some interesting ideas for ending the curse. I didn't find them too compelling (or realistic) but they too provided some food for thought. Overall, a great read.

On my internet-radio show, Tom DiLorenzo correctly said "We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton's America."

DiLorenzo describes Hamilton as Jefferson's arch rival. After the America Revolution, Hamilton wanted to import British mercantilism and establish an American aristocracy. Hamilton invented the concept of implied powers, which is used to subvert the Constitution.

DiLorenzo goes on to tell how Lincoln, a Hamiltonian, supported centralized government, protectionism, corporate welfare, central banking, and military force. Woodrow Wilson, another Hamiltonian, gave us the income tax, the abomination known as the Federal Reserve Bank, and the direct election of U.S. senators.

I only wish Aaron Burr's bullet had killed Hamilton's evil ideas.

Michael Beitler, Ph.D.

Host of "Free Markets With Dr. Mike Beitler"

Author of "Rational Individualism" Rational Individualism: A Moral Argument for Limited Government & Capitalism

The premise here is startling for anyone who has a thorough fundamental knowledge of our founders. As someone who has been a professional historian for over 40 years, much of that time in a major American archives, I am astounded that an author would present such a selective history and avoid the obvious rebuttals that a college sophomore could make. And dear reviewers, if you don't know the history to begin with, you can't judge whether the presentation is objective, or not. So to conclude that the man is a qualified historian, may reflect a bias at the very outset.

Washington would have had to have been a dunce to allow this egomaniac to influence his policies to the extent he did. This denigration of Hamilton is at the same time, a denigration of Washington. What does this do for one of the great attributes of Washington? -- the great administrative Solomon who decided the initial course of the nation only after he had heard all the pros and cons of his disagreeing cabinet. Washington could hardly have been a great president if he were so easily conned by an authoritarian demagogue.

The author ignores context of the time -- writing from his comfy chair in the 21st century -- seemingly oblivious to the bankrupt, chaotic, bickering, collapsing state of the nation in which the great minds of the age stepped forth to offer experimental theses for a new form of government. There was no road map! NO ONE of that age had any idea that their experiment would succeed so grandly. NO ONE could say, with the kind of certain judgment that this author condemns Hamilton after 200 years, which of the ideas were the best for the future. So with regard to "implied powers," when the constitution gave a responsibility to government, but didn't explain "how" that responsibility was to be carried out, Hamilton's argument to Washington was completely sound, completely logical, completely in context for the age -- if it's in the constitution, the founders clearly meant for there to be some way to carry it out . . . some program, some agency, some office in government. Obvious! That logic was clear to the man who is hailed as one of the great administrative presidents of history, George Washington. To ridicule Hamilton for "implied powers" as if he were some tyrannical usurper, hints that 21st century motives drive this author's sensational revision. Berating Hamilton ignores his own thorough understanding of the constitution's purpose as FEW of his time did. If his argument was so wrong, so dangerous, such a betrayal to the revolution, then why would so many patriots of his age, including the founder of founders, George Washington, become proponents of the same argument? The overwhelming evidence is that "implied powers" became the law of the land some 20 years later by the logical weight of the argument!! THAT is our great story! Our great history evolved because logical arguments, adopted within the framework of constitutional institutions, shaped the future of the nation.

And what's this appeal to Jeffersonian ideals? Does the author, or any of his minions, have any clue what the logical conclusion today might be for some of Jefferson's salient ideas -- that each generation is, as a different nation with the right to decide, for itself, what form of government it wants; a king, Jefferson said, if the will of the people of that generation want it. There are many, and I mean MANY, of these Jeffersonian ideas that, as is alleged with Hamilton's "implied powers," might be considered a threat to liberty in the 21st century and a betrayal of the American Revolution.

I borrowed this book from a colleague. We both agree that mere documentation of references does not a historical thesis make. Clearly this author missed one of the most salient elements of any good graduate course in historiography -- underlying the presentation of any historical thesis is the historian's moral and ethical duty to reference in context, history that he knows exists and that stands in opposition to his thesis. A historian who fails to do that, will receive the just criticisms that this author has received here from other historians. The rebuttal to his thin thesis is in the basic historical context of the age. If he can't comprehend the opposition, then it would have served him well to submit his crucifixion of Hamilton to peer review.

This author killed Hamilton -- again. It's worse this time. Shots like this wound U.S. History.

Another outstanding book by Professor DiLorenzo. Hamilton's Curse exposes the revered neoconservative hero, Hamilton, for what he really was, an unabashed statist.

DiLorenzo exposes Hamilton's true views on liberty and government. Hamilton clearly rejected the ideal of a decentralized republic, one of the key objectives of the American Revolution. After the Revolution, Hamilton worked tirelessly to subvert the very republic he helped create. In the Constitutional Convention, he was an advocate for a centralized imperial nation. In his famous Convention speech, he advocated a President and Senate for life, and state governors appointed by the President. The House of Representatives would be elected by the people as the one democratic feature. The President would have an ABSOLUTE veto over all legislation, and the governors would have the same in the states, which would be reduced to nothing more than adminstrative districts. The government was in fact monarchy without the formal title.

Hamilton also was an advocate for corporate welfare, centralized banking and a strong military force. He used the military to surpress the Whiskey Rebellion, and advocated executing the oppressed farmers involved in the abortive protest. Hamilton was a supporter of the oppressive Alien and Sedition Acts after their passage. A true lover of liberty indeed!

The chapter on the statist Chief Justice John Marshall was the best in my opinion. DiLorenzro shows how Marshall, an advocate for strong central government, used his lifetime tenure to infect the body politic with Hamiltonian ideals of centralization. Marshall, an enemy of Jefferson and his ideals, was one of the figures most responsible for infusing the republic with what Jefferson called "consolidation". This consolidation, a Hamiltonian dream, has resulted in Hamilton's Curse to pervade the Republic up until this day, consuming it in it's fury.

Overall, this is a fantastic book. I have to agree with one of the other reviewers, that I also hold little hope of the Jeffersonian Republic and ideals of the American Revolution returning. The American people are truly controlled and buffaloed by the corporate mass media and love of big government. The love of liberty, I believe an intregal part of the human constitution, is very dim in our time. Hopefully, some will read this great book by DiLorenzo, reject Hamiltonianism, strong central government, and statism in general.

It is little wonder that neoconservatives worship Hamilton, and that even so-called paleoconservatives, like Pat Buchanan revere him. Buchanan, an advocate of corporate welfare, and high tariffs has always been in reality, an advocate of big government of the conservative variety. The neocons are advocates of what William Kristol called "national greatness" conservatism, which is nothing more than Hamiltonianism in modern form. They will hate this book.

If you are a lover of liberty, you will love it.