Rating: 
Summary: Time Slices of Hamilton
Review: Hamilton seems hard to capture definitively. Some books paint him as an extreme, militaristic nut case; some as Christian martyr (based on some of his deathbed utterances); some as brilliant power monger. Here, Brookhiser presents a portrait of Hamilton as honest man making his way in the world as a soldier, lawyer, and almost-statesman. Brookhiser hits hard on Hamilton's gift for simplifying great issues in writing and in oral argument before courts, and one of his most interesting slices of time he explores is Hamilton in private practice after leaving the government. A French visitor is shocked to see Hamilton working late at night in his law office to make ends meet. The French guy assumes that anyone who has been so high up in government is naturally rich as a result of skillfully raking off graft from corruption, and just can't get over Hamilton actually working.The dark side of this, as Brookhiser shows, is that Hamilton's tendency to go off after wild, big ideas and projects also tended to spill his great efforts onto unpaid ground, so to speak, leaving his large family with nothing to speak of upon his death. Brookhiser does not square this with the fact that Hamilton's wife came from the wealthy old knickerbocker family of the Schuyler's, so we have to take his own word for it on the poverty issue. So if you work hard, you may not die rich. But you may still achieve lasting fame. How Hamilton did it is all here, or here enough, to be a great read.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent introduction to the subject.
Review: This book is short and therefore not as thorough a biography as one might want, but it is certainly an excellent introduction to the life of Alexander Hamilton for anyone who is not already well-read on the subject. Brookhiser is a fine writer, not at all dry and able to give an excellent feel for his subject in such a short work.
Rating:
Summary: Statesman for America
Review: Alexander Hamilton has been over looked by historians for years being dismissed as monarchist Anglophile. But Brookhiser makes it manifest that these labels were unture. Hamilton was one of the first statesmen in America to be truly "national" most other politicians and statesmen were heavily tied to a specific state (i.e. Thomas Jefferson to Virginia). Hamilton was able at the Constitutional Convention to ensure that a strong central government and a strong executive would be established. Hamilton espoused a view that would help carry the United States into greatness. His Report on Public Credit, National Bank, and Manufactures served to be the fiscal and economic Bibles for years to come. Hamilton helped develop the political philosphy of the Federalist Party that would evolve into the Whigs, and the the Republicans. Hamilton deserves his place along with John Adams as one of our most revered and vital men.
Rating: 
Summary: Absolute Crap
Review: There is no structure, logic or historical context to any of his material. It rambles all over the place skipping from one subject to another in the same paragraph. If you like reading an editorial version of history you will love this book. This book is incredibly shallow and my evaluation of this book is that it is absolute crap.
Rating: 
Summary: A Simplistic Approach to a Complex Man
Review: The author is an editor for the National Review, and anyone who has read articles in that publication or any politically-inspired periodical will recognize a similar demagogic style in this biography. Instead of a dispassionate analysis of Hamilton and his political enemies such as Jefferson and Madison, Brookhiser seems intent on convincing the reader that Hamilton was right and his opponents were wrong. If that sounds too simplistic, then you might find the book similarly shallow. Criticisms of Jefferson seem to be more of an attempt to discredit the father of the Democratic party than the result of serious research. Brookhiser imposes his contemporary partisan bias on a political debate over two centuries past. The parallels just aren't there. It would be much more refreshing to see a writer acknowledge that these founding fathers were generally brilliant men who were right on some issues and wrong on others. Yes, Hamilton had a better understanding of the nature of finance and national security, but Jefferson and Hamilton more clearly understood the need for civil liberties and decentralized government. There were some enjoyable points in this book, most notably the discussion of the Hamilton/Burr duel, and a reader looking for a cursory view of Hamilton's life will take away some useful knowledge. But given the critical and controversial role that Hamilton played as a founding father, it would be wonderful to see a writer uncover the character of Hamilton in the same way that McCullough exposed Adams. Unfortunately, this book failed in that effort and reminds the reader more of a National Review article than a serious biography.
Rating:
Summary: Worth Reading for the Non-Expert
Review: I think some of the criticism leveled here is from people with expertise on Hamilton: In only 217 pages, much detail is necessarily left out. For the newcomer, however, Brookshiser sheds light on one of the most interesting on the "Founders," a self-made man who became the leading exponent of Federalism and brought economic structure to the foundling (and sometimes floundering) country. Brilliant, visionary, and enormously articulate, Hamilton was quick to argue his positions, most notably in "The Federalist Papers," in a series of anonymous letters to newspapers, and in the courtroom. His belief in a strong central government drew him into conflict with other luminaries, including Virginia Thomas Jefferson. His politics and simmering rivalry with Aaron Burr culminated in a famous duel. Today, when we think of Jefferson et al. as apolitical "statesmen," it is instructive to view the ferocious politics of the era. Brookshiser's non-academic, breezy style enlivens the characterization of the people, the times, and the economic issues. Unfortunately, this style sometimes works against him: Describing the Hamilton/Burr communiques preceding the duel, Brookshiser merely states "It would dignify the mummeries that followed to describe them in detail." Still, Brookshiser's book is a welcome addition to the literature on the Revolution and early American politics. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A worthy introduction
Review: Brookheiser's approach to Hamilton is well-suited to those of us who knew only a bare outline or caricature of the man before. However, previous reviews were right in pointing out a tendency to gloss over events. What does emerge, though, is a picture of this important founding father in his time. His impact is undeniable, and it is more than arguable that that impact has done much good for the nation. Probably the most interesting piece on the Hamilton-Burr duel, though, can be found in 'Founding Brothers.'
Rating:
Summary: Character Study of a Founding Father
Review: Author Brookhiser's high regard for Hamilton is on display with this latest biographical effort. Of all of the Founding Father's, Hamilton is one of the most interesting because of his background. Born on the wrong side of the blanket in the West Indies, he comes to America in his early teens. Already displaying a remarkable intellect, he quickly becomes immersed in the affairs of his adopted country. Serving as an aide to Washington, he gets an insider's view of the American Revolution. Much has been written of Washington's view on Hamilton (the son he never had) but it is curious that Hamilton doesn't seem to return the sentiment. After the war, he returns to New York City and quickly becomes a successful attorney. But his real genius lies with finance. He realizes that the new country must have a stable financial system to ensure trade and prosperity. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton views manufacturing and finance as the cornerstones of the new country, not farming. It is interesting to note how modern some of his ideas are. But always in the background is the nagging thought that Hamilton was a bit of a snob. Coming from an impoverished background, he quickly identified himself with the elite of the new country after he had made his fortune. He never embraced the democratic principles of Jefferson and was always suggesting that the national government be stronger in the powers allocated it, versus states rights. His last days and his infamous duel with Aaron Burr are not fully explained. However, after reading other books on the subject, I think that the dueling death of Hamilton's oldest son, Philip, left Alexander Hamilton with something of a "death wish". The duel could have been so easily ignored and yet events seemed to march on to their inevitable conclusion. I would recommend this book to anyone interesting in the lives and thoughts of Alexander Hamilton and the role he played in the founding of the United States.
Rating:
Summary: A great man, but was he a great American?
Review: A professor of mine summed up his opinion of Hamilton's legacy with the remark that he "was a great man, but not a great American." Brookhiser aims to convince his readers that Hamilton was indeed a great American, a patriot who served his country at its founding with great distinction, and who embodied many aspects of the ideal American success story. Born illegitimate in the West Indies to a ne'er-do-well and a mother who died when he was a child, Alexander emigrated to New York City as a teenager and through his extraordinary talent, energy, and hard work became arguably at one point the most influential man in America. Why do we seem to remember Hamilton without fondness? Partly because of his role as spokesman and advocate for financial and commercial interests, party because of his elitist views and outspoken pragmatism. He did not hide his admiration of England and of its constitutional system. During a dinner with Washington's first cabinet, John Adams remarked that if England's constitution could only be purged of its corruption, it would be the finest in the world. Hamilton replied, "purge it of its corruption ... and it would become an * impracticable * government; as it stands, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed." (p 104) Hamilton had a highly practical cast of mind, and he aimed to install what worked, what was effective. He distrusted populism and lofty ideals that could prove fragile, insincere, or hypocritical (as in the case of the French Revolution or the philosophy of Jefferson). Brookhiser writes so well, he can make history entertaining as well as informative (the book is intended as a popular biography). He makes the best possible case for Hamilton, arguing that he was in his own way idealistic - he wanted an America that could survive, and thrive, on the world stage - but held that ideals had to be tied to individual interest in order to endure. Hamilton was himself ambitious, but principled; charges of corruption and abuse of power made against him always proved false. George Washington, a very good judge of character, thought very highly of him. But I think Brookhiser goes too easy on the problems with Hamilton's ideas that so worried his contemporaries. Though Hamilton himself was admirable, more selfish persons could exploit the system he advocated to maximum personal advantage, and obtain, through mere greed, inordinate and unaccountable power over the rest of society. Referring again to the quote on his admiration for England's constitution, the book doesn't explain how a patriotic American who fought against the crown could believe this without inconsistency.
Rating:
Summary: A Disappointed Hamiltonian
Review: Richard Brookhiser's "Alexander Hamilton, American" ultimately fails to convince the reader that this book was well researched or written. The vagueness and ambiguity of the author's language on the man who is the least understood, most important and inspiring of the founding fathers does not give Hamilton his due. Brookhiser simply gives the basic facts about Hamilton, but unfortunately does not offer any real concrete scholarly insights. When compared to earlier works such as Clinton L. Rossiter's "Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution," Brookhiser's account will soon be forgotten. For those students who wish to get a more comprehensive study on Alexander Hamilton's life and philosphy, the definitve book is "Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution" if it can still be found in print! Also, two recent books seemingly capture Hamilton at his best. The first is "Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America" by Thomas Fleming and "Founding Brothers," by Joseph J. Ellis. Both books are well written and researched, and describe Hamilton in the context of his time with new scholarly insight.
|
