Rating: 
Summary: An Intuitive Portrait of an American Founder
Review: 'Alexander Hamilton, American' presents a well-rounded narrative of an American founding father. Brookhiser paints a portrait of Hamilton with vivid detail. Moreover, he offers a lively narrative of Alexander's life from his heyday as a teen prodigy in St. Croix to his fateful duel with Aaron Burr. Though, this book has drawn criticism foremost for its brevity, it manages to develop an intricate, lively and all too human portrait of Hamilton. Hamilton's administrative genius, economic savvy and statesmanship have masked his humble origins. Brookhiser brings young Alexander to life. He chronicles his practical education as a clerk and his exodus to America for a more erudite education. From there, Hamilton emerges as a patriot, a soldier whose wartime service breaks the tenacity of his youth, as a jurist and a statesman for the fledging republic. Likewise, his ambitious tenure as Treasury Secretary and his struggles with the Jeffersonian Republicans are chronicled. This biography-like Hamilton's life-is cut short by a solemn and foreboding chapter entitled 'Death.' For the curious, Brookhiser is a neoconservative journalist of the National Review variety and leaves little doubt that he is a Hamiltonian. Some might complain a Hamiltonian doesn't make for objectivity, but I doubt Jefferson's biographer Dumas Malone, (a thorough-going Jeffersonian,) would have gave any semblance of objectivity if he wrote Hamilton's bio. While questions of objectivity abound, I think one has to take an interest and perhaps have a perculiar affinity for their subject, especially if that subject is a founding father. (Myself, I'm more of a Madisonian.) Though, having read several books on Hamilton, I can't bring myself to write this book off as superficial as so many reviewers have. Brookhiser, however, ambitious has too many books to compete with and doesn't bat an eye as claimant to Hamilton's 'best biographer' by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of mincing words about the succinct nature of this book, I offer other recommendations to suit the discerning reader's fancy. 'Broadus Mitchell' offers an informative two-volume biography on Hamilton or a condensed one-volume version. Forrest McDonald's 'Alexander Hamilton: A Biography' delves deep into Hamilton's political career and statesmanship adding depth and perspectives on the 'Hamiltonian Political Economy.' Clinton Rossiter's work- 'Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution'-remains the best guide to Hamilton's constitutional thought. Of course, 'The Young Hamilton' by James Thomas Flexner gives depth to Hamilton's formative years.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Introduction to a Great Man
Review: What a wonderful book! "Alexander Hamilton, American" manages to pack quite a bit into 217 pages: the story of Hamilton, a plausible version of his essence and personality, and a survey of the clashes of Revolutionary War generation titans. Richard Brookshiser accomplishes all this beautifully in this brief, highly readable book. Brookshiser is not interested in all the little details of Hamilton's life and times. He is not interested in reproducing volumes of Hamilton's writings, letters to Hamilton, or articles about Hamilton. He is interested in telling a story, and then making points about the role of words, rights, and passion in Hamilton's character. I'm guessing that most Americans don't know the story of Alexander Hamilton, the relatively poor immigrant who became one of this nation's most important founders. Hamilton today is respected, but not always revered as some of his opponents like Jefferson and Madison are. Brookshiser reveres him. But he writes with a kind of awe for many who did not share the same feelings for each other. "It is impossible not to love John Adams," (p. 130) Brookshiser writes. Really? Who loved him back then? Not Hamilton, not Jefferson. Hamilton and Jefferson were, of course, at odds with each other, too. But not enough so as to prevent them from joining forces against Aaron Burr in 1800, who eventually killed Hamilton in a duel four years later. The soap opera intrigue of the founders as highlighted by this book stands out as more severe than any product of current politics. Indeed, all of what people don't like about politics today was magnified and exaggerated in Hamilton's' time: back-biting and betrayal, partisan extremism, grandstanding and demagoguery, biased media, long political careers, abuse of power, corruption, racism, and sex scandals. Hamilton was the central figure in America's first sex scandal. During his tenure as Washington's first Secretary of the Treasury (Washington alone rises above the fray in Brookshiser's early America), Hamilton was accused of financial shenanigans. Proof lay in payments he made to a shady character named James Reynolds. Hamilton's defense was a detailed confession to an affair with Reynolds' wife - the payments were more or less hush money. Reynolds himself was guilty of many things, including apparently using his wife as bait in this sordid blackmail scheme. Hamilton denied financial malfeasance, but admitted adultery like no American politician since. I'm not sure if Brookshiser intended his Hamilton to be compared to Bill Clinton, but I couldn't get the comparison out of my head. Hamilton and Clinton share much in common up to a point. Both came from highly inauspicious beginnings but rose to the pinnacles of power. Both came from broken homes with unreliable father-figures who abandoned them early in life. Both were highly intelligent Ivy-League lawyers. Both had faith in the federal government. And both were accused of using their office for personal financial gain, only to have a love affair reveled instead. If this comparison is intentional, Brookshiser may be inviting a contrast between Hamilton's choices at crucial moments and Clinton's. Hamiton, during his war, joined the army and served faithfully under General Washington. Hamilton did not lie about his affair, or even hide any of the details about it (although neither was he proud of the matter - he seemed genuinely regretful). Hamilton was a principled lawyer who used words and law to try to unveil natural rights, not simply win or propel his ambition. To illustrate this last point, Brookshiser uses Burr as Hamilton's foil. But Brookshiser's Burr could also be a more violent stand-in for Bill Clinton. Even if the specter of Clinton is purely illusionary (Brookshiser does not mention him), the personalities and situations of the founders as Brookshiser writes about them are highly accessible to the modern reader. Brookshiser doesn't let the reader forget that we're reading a book. Brookshiser includes asides, such as the number of words in the book (78,000 - p. 156). Many of these asides are highly humorous, in a very contemporary way - "William Cobbett...wrote under the name Peter Porcupine (not drawn form Plutarch or Livy)" (p. 138); "Tallyrand would serve a republic, an emperor, and three kings, though the only king to whom he was loyal was Brie, the king of cheeses" (p. 136). Somehow, none of this detracts from the book. Brookshiser includes many examples of the founders' own humor as well, suggesting that his writing is in the same vein. But ultimately "Alexander Hamilton, American" is a serious and respectful book about a serious and important historical figure. Brookshiser clearly believes in the "great man" theory of leadership, and further believes that Hamilton qualifies. Regardless of whether Hamilton was great, this book is a great introduction to the man, and a good story too!
Rating:
Summary: A great man - an honest biograhy
Review: I like Richard Brookhiser's biographies of the founders. They tell us about the man by dealing with the issues of his life using the chronology to give context and substance to these issues. This book on Hamilton is very enjoyable to read and helped me learn more about the greatness and humanity of the man than I had understood before. We learn about Hamilton's foreign birth and unlikely beginnings. We follow his rise and learn about the many strengths he had. Brookhiser is sympathetic to Hamilton's merits, as I believe we should be, but he doesn't shy away from his limitations either. The author also takes on the various debates and controversies that still surround facets of Hamilton's life. The author cuts through them and shares his conclusions with us including what cannot be resolved and what the various contentions would mean if it were to hold. This book reads quickly, but deserves some mediation and consideration rather than a dash through. There are some helpful pictures, many helpful notes and an index.
Rating:
Summary: Great introduction to Hamilton
Review: I got this book after I saw Mr. Brookhiser and others talking about Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers on TV and I'm glad I did. "Alexander Hamilton, American" is interesting and it's also a rather brief book so you can breeze through it fairly quickly. Hamilton appreciated what it meant to be an American in a different way than the other founders since he wasn't born here, he didn't have the helpful family ties of a Madison or a Jefferson, he was a self-made man who rose to the top through his will and his wits - where else but in America was such a thing possible in that era? Brookhiser's work helps round out the story of our nation's origins. For me, there were several occasions where something in this book touched on something I'd previously read in biographies of Washington, Madison, Jefferson or Adams and gave it a different spin or filled in some of the gaps in such a way that these events became more three-dimensional and less like mere facts in a dusty old book. Hamilton's story necessarily intersects with that of Aaron Burr. After I read Brookhiser's initial description of Burr, like others I couldn't help but think he could have been describing former President Clinton. You can think what you want of that, but I was fascinated by how George Washington had an almost visceral distrust of Burr shortly after he joined Gen. Washington's staff. It made me interested in learning more about Burr and what it was that made some people adore him and made others find him so creepy. Burr aside, Alexander Hamilton led a fascinating life that came to an untimely and tragic end. "Alexander Hamilton, American" is an excellent introduction to this man.
Rating:
Summary: "This is a Mortal Wound, Doctor"-Alexander Hamilton
Review: Good Friday, April 9, 2004 I should listen to my mother more often. "Never talk about religion or politics." That's hard to do, however, in an election year! However, my mother is usually correct. (My Hamilton roots come from my mother's, mother's, mother, Molly Hamilton Summers. This Scots-Irish branch of my family is also the bookworm branch in the family. My mother's reading a book right now!) I find it funny that most of Hamilton's modern day biographers hold predominantly republican sentiments. Richard Brookhiser is an editor of The National Review, a conservative publication with strong right leanings. My mother tells me too that it's good that there are Republicans as well as Democrats, although I'm still somewhat skeptical! After calming down from my initial upset over Brookhiser's estimation of Alexander's father's character, (he states repeatedly that he was a bum), I've carefully read every word of the book. Brookhiser's analysis of Hamilton and other patriots is fair-minded for the most part. The book is only 200 plus pages, and so is not an in-depth analysis of Hamilton or his achievements as McDonald's is. Brookhiser's book should be read before McDonald's; I think it would make McDonald's less cumbersome to read. Again, Forrest McDonald's book is incredibly well researched, no doubt about it. Brookhiser includes some of my favorite quotes by or about Hamilton, although my favorite story about his life is not. Whatever you think about the duel, Princeton University, at one time, contained evidence of Alexander's markmanship on their walls. During the battle of Princeton, Alexander fired his cannon at a picture of King George III, the Hanoverian king of Britain, totally smashing it head on! The frame was saved and the portrait was switched to one of General George Washington! Alexander had decided against Princeton and enrolled at Columbia where he could study at his own fast speed. I think Forrest McDonald's assessment of Burr is more thorough. It seems to me, the real issue between them was financial/political, not just a "character" issue on Burr's part. However, Brookhiser' biography is probably more realistic and forgiving in his analysis of Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others who did not share Hamilton's views in the last years of his life. What I liked most about this book was that Alexander's feats/defeats are told within the continental context through which they were unfolding. It's a good review of the basics in American colonial history.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Survey of Hamilton
Review: I'm of two minds as to this work, at once wonderfully intuitive yet frustratingly superficial. Brookhiser comes close to capturing a full personal portrait of Hamilton, our long-dead patriot. He might have come closer had he explored more minutely the cruch points in Hamilton's life -- e.g., how -- step-by-step -- did Hamilton end up on that fatal New Jersy dueling field with Burr. Moreover, had the author examined in more detail Hamilton's beliefs and maneuvering on the big national issues he fought over (granted, there were many), more insight into Hamilton, the man, might have emerged. Further, I believe the author should have treated more analytically the economic arguments and implications of Hamilton's positions. Had he done so the reader might have enjoyed a better appreciation for Hamilton's significance in today's world. For example, did the fledgling U.S. national bank's issuance of money create inflation? Which economic consequences of Hamilton's national bank did the those opposed to its establishment fear? How independent was the national bank originally and how, operationally, did it create credit, and how has that role changed over time? The book provides interesting insights into the complex personal and fraternal ties and enmities among the major players. I'm still not sure, however, to what degree Hamilton was motivated by familial/political concerns (he married into the powerful New York Schuyler clan) versus his ideological commitment. What was the nature of that commitment -- mere pragmatism?
Rating:
Summary: "This is a Mortal Wound, Doctor"-Alexander Hamilton
Review: Good Friday, April 9, 2004 I should listen to my mother more often. "Never talk about religion or politics." That's hard to do, however, in an election year! However, my mother is usually correct. (My Hamilton roots come from my mother's, mother's, mother, Molly Hamilton Summers. This Scots-Irish branch of my family is also the bookworm branch in the family. My mother's reading a book right now!) I find it funny that most of Hamilton's modern day biographers hold predominantly republican sentiments. Richard Brookhiser is an editor of The National Review, a conservative publication with strong right leanings. My mother tells me too that it's good that there are Republicans as well as Democrats, although I'm still somewhat skeptical! After calming down from my initial upset over Brookhiser's estimation of Alexander's father's character, (he states repeatedly that he was a bum), I've carefully read every word of the book. Brookhiser's analysis of Hamilton and other patriots is fair-minded for the most part. The book is only 200 plus pages, and so is not an in-depth analysis of Hamilton or his achievements as McDonald's is. Brookhiser's book should be read before McDonald's; I think it would make McDonald's less cumbersome to read. Again, Forrest McDonald's book is incredibly well researched, no doubt about it. Brookhiser includes some of my favorite quotes by or about Hamilton, although my favorite story about his life is not. Whatever you think about the duel, Princeton University, at one time, contained evidence of Alexander's markmanship on their walls. During the battle of Princeton, Alexander fired his cannon at a picture of King George III, the Hanoverian king of Britain, totally smashing it head on! The frame was saved and the portrait was switched to one of General George Washington! Alexander had decided against Princeton and enrolled at Columbia where he could study at his own fast speed. I think Forrest McDonald's assessment of Burr is more thorough. It seems to me, the real issue between them was financial/political, not just a "character" issue on Burr's part. However, Brookhiser' biography is probably more realistic and forgiving in his analysis of Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others who did not share Hamilton's views in the last years of his life. What I liked most about this book was that Alexander's feats/defeats are told within the continental context through which they were unfolding. It's a good review of the basics in American colonial history.
Rating:
Summary: the conventional view, over lightly
Review: If you want a portrait of Hamilton that adds nothing new and essentially expounds the traditional mythology, then this is your book. As far as I can tell, Brookhiser has done no new research, questions nothing, and is content to assume Hamilton was a brilliant, competent, and good man who helped to forge the force for the good that America would become. While I learned some interesting biographical details, I could have gotten them from any other biography. Moreover, Brookhiser does not have a nice or very clear writing style - the tone of the book is rushed, somewhat repetitious, and boring. It was easy to skim for facts and offered no original pleasures. As such, I thought it was a real dud. If these criticisms don't matter to you, then you might find this book satisfactory. Not recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Not the best biography on Hamilton
Review: I put the book down when I read what Mr. Brookehiser wrote about Alexander's father James, that he was a ne'er do well. I have visited Nevis, where Alexander was born and may be directly descended from Alexander Hamilton, Laird of the Grange, Scotland, Alexander's namesake and grandfather. I suggest to Mr. Brookehiser that he read Vincent Hubbard's book about the history of Nevis. The sugar cane business underwent boom and bust periods whose profits were intimately linked to supporting the war machines of individual european nations. (Nevis's income supported Great Britain's forces, in particular, its navy). James Hamilton's lack of success economically may well not be a fault of his own. One must be very careful in writing about Hamilton because in actuality, he was very much hated by Adams, Jefferson, and much that has been written about him historically is not accurate, because it was not accurate, strongly one-sided, at the time during which he lived. I must say, that hatred of Hamilton continues today which spurred me to read more about him with an eye on finding reasons why my own family would be hated so much. In fairness to Mr. Brookehiser, much is not known about James. And for those who want tabloid type details on any of Americas's founding fathers and are disappointed that that information is not supplied by the biographers, they must understand the types of information that were available at the time (mostly letters in the eighteen century), that could shed more light upon the persons being studied. I prefer Forrest McDonald's biography because it is written by a historian, someone who is a Professor, whose focus has been on early American history, and whose work is carefully researched. His endnotes, revealing his source material, indicate how he consulted personal letters and even read all of Alexander's sources of information in order to try to understand how he thought. I am wary of biographers with more experience in journalism writing historical biographies on people who lived before the twentieth century. Mainly because, in the modern century, one can very easily reconstruct the context in which actions, decisions were done and made, and a source's validity is more quickly verified or not. The problem, however, is that the journalist's story is better told and read by the public, and as such, will be the more popularized versions. But, for that last statement of mine, I am very much a black sheep. What is most important to me, is that the truth be told, even if it is not popular. That, I believe is a Hamiltonian trait that Hamilton and I do share, and I must add, as a biologist by profession, that it is in both of our genes. I am not impressed by the 500 glowing reviews of John Adams and his modern journalistic biographer, Mr. McCullough. Better to have 10 or 20 commentaries on a well-researched, truthful, work of art than a 1000 on a sweet sounding, well-written, but false, piece of junk. A good read can be a bad book. Please see my review dated 04/09/04. I'm responsible for the contents and any problems/misunderstandings it may have generated.
Rating: 
Summary: If you don't know the history don't read this book
Review: I enthusiastically bought this book as I enjoyed Brookhiser's biography of George Washington. I did expect and found that Brookhiser would gloss over some of Hamilton's faults as Brookhiser is rather pro Federalist. Despite this Brookhiser does leave the reader to decide for himself. Brookhiser does admit some of Hamilton's faults and gives opposing views in places. My disappointment with the book was how it was written. It pales to his Washington biography. I knew I would not learn much new in only a 217 page book, but this book fell much too short. I learned very little new about Hamilton. On the other hand, a person who knows a limited bit of Hamilton and his times who reads this book hoping to find out more may also be disappointed . Brookhiser writes with the assumption the reader already knows about the times. If the readers does not then he or she will be lost or having to scramble to a text book to find out what Brookhiser is writing about. His chapters on "Words", "Rights" and "Passions" are great food for thought and each could begin as the basis for books on the subjects. However, in this book they only serve to fill in pages that could be better used to provide better detail about Hamilton. Brookhiser seems torn between writing about Hamilton's life and Hamilton's time. He comes up short in both areas.
| 
