Alexander Hamilton – by Ron Chernow
Anyone who knows me, can attest to my being a bit of a
historical bibliophile. My favorite timeframe is the Revolutionary era.
Overall, I would hazard a guess that I have read over 100 biographies or
historical pieces, and likely over 50 from the Revolutionary period. I will
offer the disclaimer that I am partial to Thomas Jefferson, having read 22
books focused on him, including the 5 Dumas Malone definitive, though limited,
offerings. Still, I can speak to Jefferson’s hypocrisy, conniving, weaknesses
on slavery, and tendency to get carried away when thinking out loud via the
pen.
Alexander Hamilton is a fascinating historical figure. I
had read a biography on him previously, and naturally he is a key figure in any
work regarding Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Burr, and many others. I
have also examined the Federalist Papers in detail, and, of course, read the
Constitution (something conservative wingnuts might want to try doing).
My opinion of Alexander Hamilton’s place in history is to
revere and respect him, yet also be fully conscious of his weaknesses. He
clearly is the father of our financial system, though some might argue how much
of a positive that has become, or whether it could have been built successfully
with more of a soul. There is no doubt that he put the newborn nation on a firm
fiscal basis with his many plans and actions. I wonder if Albert Gallatin could
have done the same, or perhaps someone else, but Hamilton did do it and
deserves tireless praise as a result.
His work on getting the Constitution passed in the
various states, and especially New York, also merits high praise. While he
questioned the strength of the document, it never would have been enacted
without the Federalist Papers, of which he was the prime author. He also was a
valued confidante of George Washington, both during the Revolutionary War and during
his presidential term, though more so in the first 5 years.
Hamilton also had a great many flaws, among them an epic
vanity, a thin skin, a partiality toward monarchy and Great Britain, and an
inability to avoid intrigue. He also had his famous interlude with Maria
Reynolds, a problem he compounded significantly when he could not let questions
about his financial dealings go unanswered and, instead, wrote in excessive
detail about the affair as part of his defense of his actions as Treasury Secretary.
Needless to say, Alexander Hamilton was a great man, one
of this nation’s brightest lights of the founding era. Because he never became
president, he sometimes tends to become lost in history classes and national
discourse. For that reason, I am pleased that the current Broadway hit,
“Hamilton,” by Lin-Manuel Miranda has captured so much of our attention (I go
to see it in August). It has to help whenever people learn our history, even
when they do not know they are doing so, and, sadly, even when that portrayal
is likely unbalanced and less than ideally accurate.
And that leads me to Ron Chernow’s “Hamilton.” I had
never previously read any of Chernow’s work, but there is nothing that would
lead me to believe he is anything but a legitimate historian and writer. I
avoid like the plague any faux historians like Bill O’Reilly, whose “Murder of”
series are a blight on the historical record and not worthy of even a glancing
look. The 700 + page Chernow book is well constructed, flows with ease and is a
bounty of detail and information. Sadly, it also reads with an excess of bias
and injection of pro-Hamilton leanings.
Especially during Hamilton’s time as Treasury Secretary,
but almost in any mention of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James
Monroe, Aaron Burr, Philip Freneau, and Aaron Burr, Chernow goes too far in
tilting the conversation. His disdain for Jefferson borders on being, well,
Hamiltonian. Jefferson’s first term success is attributed solely to luck or
Hamilton’s financial system and Adams’s keeping the country out of war with
France.
Chernow might offer a Hamilton fault, but often after
pages upon pages of condemning the “other” side of the story and then qualify
everything with unequal, leading adjectives. He immediately is drawn to
conjecture of other’s intentions as the worst and Hamilton’s as more noble.
There is little doubt from my recollections of biographies of all the aforementioned
other historical characters, that Chernow has taken much liberty in his telling
of the historical record, omits many details or skims over them, is prone to
assumptions that are reaches or worse, and has written with an agenda of an
anti-Jeffersonian bent that does a disservice to his own narrative. Burr even
gets better treatment than Jefferson, though he, too, is not fairly depicted.
The portrait of James Madison, who I am told takes a beating in the Broadway
musical, borders on caricature at times.
My advice to anyone interested in history is to read far
beyond Chernow (read Chernow, though, too), not only on Jefferson, Madison,
Burr, and others, but on Alexander Hamilton himself. Hamilton deserves
reverence, respect, his spot on the front of the ten-dollar bill and more
appreciation than he receives. Just not as much as Chernow sometimes gives him,
often at the expense of other great men.
