Argues that Hamilton and Jefferson both wanted a stable economic policy that would smooth social change and simply disagreed over the means to that end.
Some good info/data, but poorly written, which makes it an unenjoyable and needlessly difficult read.
Nelson’s primary argument forces him into making the unorthodox argument that Hamilton was actually less committed to manufacturing interests and government intervention than the democratic-republican, laissez-faire triumvirate of Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin. This subsidiary argument is convincing at some points, but the author also makes some pretty glaring errors in his arguing it, including skipping around in time to support his points, recognition but dismissal of rival theories, and the occasionally obviously incorrect statement. Still an interesting argument that you don’t often hear, which could be useful for some potential readers who have similar intuitions.