Source link: http://blog.mises.org/8807/hamiltons-curse/
Hamilton’s Curse
Previous post: The Importance of Capital Theory
Next post: Gas price collapse, just in time
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 12 comments }
Definitely going on my “to buy” list.
I have already prereleas ordered this book on Amizon
At the top of my queue!
My copy is on the way!
Likewise Christopher Hightower.
Mine just arrived. My wife in jest mentioned that we probably won’t be seeing each other for the next couple of days. Yep, sorry honey.
Sigh. I hope to read this book, but not because I agree with his thesis. In fact, I completely disagree. I am currently posting a critique of his views on Hamilton, in fact:
http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com
I have been an avid student of the Founding Era, the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton’s life and writings for more than 5 years now. I have worked with the primary resources, some of which have not been reprinted in more than 150 years.
While I agree with DiLorenzo that the Fed is wrong, that the federal government should be limited, and that the Federal Reserve is an evil and corrupt institution, I strongly disagree with his denouncing of Hamilton and Morris. Indeed, if it were not for George Washington, none of these men would have had their way.
If DiLorenzo is going to go on like this (with all due respect), maybe he should plan on writing a book bashing George Washington too. After all, Thomas Jefferson (the demigod of our sacred democracy, right?) said that Washington was Hamilton’s stupid and deluded puppet. Maybe we should all start following Jefferson’s example, who paid crooks like James T. Callender and Ben Franklin Bache to print lies about Washington and his administration, too.
I admire the Mises Institute, and I applaud their patriotic efforts to get the truth out about our nation’s economy, and to promote wholesome solutions. However, I think that their endorsement of this book will do more harm than good. False historical assumptions never achieved a good cause yet.
Hercules:
While I agree with the general point of your blog post, that A. Hamilton was not such an evil man as DiLorenzo might want to prove, the specific thrust of your argument is somewhat corrupted by the way you keep associating yourself with LaRoache.
I have no doubt that Hamilton was a just and virtuous man. However, that doesn’t mean that the outcome of many of the policies favored by him and his political allies (who did continue fighting for them even after his death) couldn’t have had the disasterous consequences usually associated with late 19th century ‘laissez faire’. History is nearly bereft of truly evil men, men who set out to do bad with malevolent intentions in their heart. All those who are today remembered as the greatest of devils almost always saw what they were doing as for the best of reasons; In fact, I would say those who were most convinced of their own righteousness often did the worst evils. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hamilton may have been a great man, intelligent and pious, but his outlook on government poisoned a well we’re still forced to drink of today.
Jefferson may have been a flawed, contradictory man (which, from a purely literary point of view, makes him somewhat more interesting), but his outlook on government would probably have been more successful in preserving the American liberties we have lost in the last two centuries.
Ultimately, though, neither got it entirely right and we can always do better by looking to future improvement, rather than dwelling on past imperfection.
Hello Michael M. Thanks for taking the time to read my post, and for responding.
Honestly, I could not agree more with you, that even those most well-intentioned, “good men” have done things with the greatest intentions — and that those things have wreaked the greatest havoc over time. You make a valid point.
You say that Hamilton’s views on government “poisoned the well” — could you clarify, and, if possible, add documentation? On a personal note, I used to believe that Hamilton’s views on government had disastrous outcomes as well. But then I spent about 4-5 years studying what he actually wrote, and I was surprised to discover that his views on government did not favor giving most power to a wealty, elite minority — far from it! I learned that he emphasized government of law, and that the reason he emphasized orderly and balanced government, and not democracy, was because he was living in a post-revolutionary time, when the scales were tipping out of balance in favor of mob rule. And he knew (and many of the other Founders like Washington and John Adams knew) that democratic extremes always defeat liberty. They never help insure freedom for anybody.
My research led me to believe that my former views were shaped by a very erroneous 20th century revisionism, that was instituted for the purpose of disguising Hamilton’s warnings about how demagogues begin their careers. And the 20th century certainly has been a century of demagogues taking their careers to a height in American politics.
As for Jefferson’s views — you say that his outlook on government was probably more successful in defining lasting liberty. I wonder why it is, though, that Jefferson was suddenly idolized in the 20th century, and Hamilton blasted to smithereens by and large by our politicans, media, and textbooks. Perhaps Jefferson was sincere, but I think he was wrong in favoring democratic extremes. His unwavering support of the French Revolution is certainly a demonstration of that. And like I said, democratic extremes are more dangerous to liberty than anything. Is this idolization of Jefferson, and the bashing of Hamilton during a century of demagogery a coincidence?
I’ve written a post, where I mentioned the futility of Jefferson’s anarchist views here:
http://meetthefounders.blogspot.com/2008/12/ffqf-john-adams-on-moral-authority.html
You say that neither man got it perfectly right, and I think that you’d be correct. But my own research is convincing me that Hamilton’s writings contain more profound wisdom than anything Jefferson ever imagined. I agree that not all of Hamilton’s predictions may be true, and I agree that Jefferson said valuable things. But, I think that Hamilton had his head screwed on straight, but Jefferson’s philosophy was poisoned by the bloody waters of the French humanistic beliefs that produced their horrific revolution.
Oh, and one more thing. About LaRouche. Let me make it clear that I do not endorse him or his group per ce. I was interested only in the fact that someone who wrote an article for his website and I share the same “conspiracy theory” that Aaron Burr, and not Alexander Hamilton, is a more likely culprit in this feudal coup-de-etat of America.
I don’t know enough about LaRouche to endorse what he believes or not (although I vaguely remember reading something about him that disturbed me, but I can’t remember it right now). So, I am certainly not trying to associate myself with his group. I’m pretty sure I made this clear in the blog post, though.
“Hamilton blasted to smithereens by and large by our politicans, media, and textbooks”
really? I think he’s given far too much glory. He’s always touted as some sort of architect of American capitalism. In history class back in high school I remember the book basically saying he was a big capitalist. Nice try, considering he was all in favor of central banking and doing things “for the public interest”…
In Restraint of State,Praise of Hamilton as a great American statesman and capitalist seems to be relatively recent, and yes, by some like Ron Chernow who favor the Federal Reserve System. What I was referring to previously, is what has been said about Hamilton in general over the past century. Most everything of it that I have read has been critical, especially criticizing Hamilton’s skepticism of democracy. But if he is truly being admired today (and even his most enthusiastic, pro-Fed admirers seem to have a lot of bad things to say about him), then why are Americans so ignorant of him? Why are they not implementing his true policies, such as the REDUCTION of debt and returning to a SOUND currency? No, Hamilton did not favor central banking; the First Bank, unlike the Fed, did not issue and control the currency of the United States. It did not issue fiat money. That is one of the big differences between Hamilton’s First NATIONAL Bank, and the 1913 CENTRAL Federal Reserve System.
Comments on this entry are closed.