Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation

by John Ferling

From the award-winning author of Almost a Miracle and The Ascent of George Washington, this is the rare work of scholarship that offers us irresistible human drama even as it enriches our understanding of deep themes in our nation's history.

The decade of the 1790s has been called the “age of passion.” Fervor ran high as rival factions battled over the course of the new republic-each side convinced that the other's goals would betray the legacy of the Revolution so recently fought and so dearly won. All understood as well that what was at stake was not a moment's political advantage, but the future course of the American experiment in democracy. In this epochal debate, no two figures loomed larger than Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Both men were visionaries, but their visions of what the United States should be were diametrically opposed. Jefferson, a true revolutionary, believed passionately in individual liberty and a more egalitarian society, with a weak central government and greater powers for the states. Hamilton, a brilliant organizer and tactician, feared chaos and social disorder. He sought to build a powerful national government that could ensure the young nation's security and drive it toward economic greatness.

Jefferson and Hamilton is the story of the fierce struggle-both public and, ultimately, bitterly personal-between these two titans. It ended only with the death of Hamilton in a pistol duel, felled by Aaron Burr, Jefferson's vice president. Their competing legacies, like the twin strands of DNA, continue to shape our country to this day. Their personalities, their passions, and their bold dreams for America leap from the page in this epic new work from one of our finest historians.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Biography, American Revolution, Politics, Presidents

464 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2013

About the author

John E. Ferling is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. A leading authority on American Revolutionary history, he is the author of several books, including "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic", "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence", and his most recent work, "The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon". He has appeared in television documentaries on PBS, the History Channel, C-SPAN Book TV, and the Learning Channel.

Reviews

[Steven Z. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before John Ferling delves into the background, philosophies, and careers of his subjects in his JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON: THE RIVALRY THAT FORGED A NATION he exposes the reader to a meditation on how the third president and the first Secretary of the Treasury have been evaluated by successive generations. At the outset Jefferson was seen more favorably as he was deemed to be a democratic populist who defended the liberties of all, while Hamilton was viewed as the spokesperson for the rich upper class or “monarchical party.” This characterization existed through most of the 19th century as Jeffersonian agrarianism fought off the evolution of industrialization. Men like Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan claimed Jefferson’s mantle, while Theodore Roosevelt and his adherents at the turn of the 20th century believed in Hamilton’s vision of American power, influence, and economic interests. By the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jefferson’s legacy reemerges with the onset and effects of the Great Depression which was laid at the feet of “monied interests.” Following World War II and the onset of the Cold War Hamilton was seen as the “patron saint” of the political right wing, and his service on behalf of the financial sector and free market economy is applauded. Jefferson’s reputation was decried during the Civil Rights era and by time Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency many saw him as a hypocrite because of his stance on slavery and his vision for America suffered. With the advent of neo-conservatism, Hamilton’s insights were more generally accepted and he was described as a creative genius. It is interesting to contemplate the new Trump administration’s stance on the two founding fathers since they came to power based on a populist economic message. It will be fascinating to speculate and somewhat scary to observe the evolution of the new regime in Washington.

It is obvious that Ferling has mined a significant amount of the voluminous secondary sources that exist on his subjects. He offers a strong synopsis of their early years and provides penetrating insights into their future characters. However, his discussion of Jefferson is presented in greater depth, in part because of the paucity of material related to Hamilton’s early years. Further, his objectivity can also be questioned as it is apparent that he holds Jefferson in greater esteem than Hamilton. Ferling claims to be more impressed with Hamilton than he thought he would be. Though he admires Hamilton’s intellect and achievements, the narrative, despite pointing out a number of Jefferson’s flaws is decidedly in favor of “the Sage of Monticello.”

Jefferson comes across as self-absorbed in his private life as opposed to his public career before the American Revolution, particularly up to 1774 as he worked on his law career, married into a monied family, and served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. His writing were sharp, clear, and radical, but only from a Virginian’s perspective. Jefferson was more radical that most Virginians and interestingly his views dovetailed more with the north. As Jefferson wrote in a meditative and philosophical manner, at the same time Hamilton’s approach was slash and burn. His no holds barred approach would never change, be it answering Samuel Seabury or Aaron Burr. What separated Hamilton’s writing from others is that he predicted why and how England would lose a war with the colonies. Hamilton avoided criticizing George III and did not call for independence, as he blamed English ministers for the coming conflict, and therefore argued for reconciliation.

Ferling writes with a smooth prose that allows the reader to glide over his words, words that are full of insight and analysis. Ferling’s comments are very measured throughout the narrative and his approach allows the reader to make up their own minds on the subjects at hand. For example, Ferling holds Jefferson in high esteem, but he does not shirk from describing his self- indulgent nature as is seen when he describes Jefferson’s contribution to the Revolutionary War effort, his accumulation of debt because of his consumerism, his refusal to serve in Congress, the hypocrisy related to his future plans for slavery, and the life style when he lived in Monticello and Paris. Ferling does balance his presentation by arguing that Jefferson’s non-military contributions to the revolution are as important as his “scripture,” the Declaration of Independence which crystallized the founding ideas of the new country by trying to diminish the power of the “patrician order” and laid the foundation of a truly republican government. As for Hamilton no one had to goad him into service or exhibit courage. However, Ferling does explore Hamilton’s motivations as he tries to overcome his family roots and achieve notoriety and success. For Hamilton, it just seemed as his life progressed there was always a rich and powerful sponsor that helped him move forward.

Ferling tells the story of the American Revolution through the movements of Hamilton and George Washington. Strategy is analyzed, personalities are explored, and the importance of Hamilton-Washington relationship is presented front and center. Ferling makes the excellent point that Washington was very concerned about the quality of intellect in the Congress at Philadelphia. Washington kept pointing out the weak financial state of the government that existed due to its inflated currency and speculation that threatened victory. The Adams and Franklins that populated the original Congress were gone by 1781, leaving few men of ability; provoking Washington to say, “where are Jefferson and others in this time of need.” A comment that may have been born of Washington’s close relationship with Hamilton.

Hamilton strongly believed that the major problem that the war effort confronted was its lack of a strong central power in government. Hamilton came to the conclusion that “Europe will save us despite ourselves.” Hamilton urged people to call for a Constitutional Convention to rectify the situation that had resulted in a military stalemate and create a National Bank in order to finance the war. Hamilton also called for the use of black soldiers in order to defeat the British. Ferling reviews Hamilton's writings and agrees with Ron Chernow’s magisterial study that Hamilton was developing his ideas and concepts that he would later apply to governing when he became Treasury Secretary.

Ferling’s approach to Jefferson’s two terms as governor of Virginia is very diplomatic. He criticizes him for taking until 1779 to agree to serve, but has empathy for Jefferson as he tries to figure out how to defend Virginia from a British invasion, but also assist South Carolina from the attack. In evaluating Jefferson as governor one might say he did try and rally his home state through leadership other than just employing his quill. Ferling reviews the reasons for Jefferson’s abandoning his capital when the British threatened. For the author Jefferson did “dilly dally” over his personal needs, and should have taken the warning of invasion more seriously. Jefferson comes across as self-centered and it took a great deal of pressure to get him to act. Overall, Jefferson’s governorship would become a political albatross around his neck until he could escape America and pursue his diplomatic mission in Europe that allowed him to avoid the post-revolution political fray as the new government gained its footing.

Ferling offers a number of important insights concerning the founding fathers that challenges the historical imagery that has surrounded them. One of the most important is his exploration of Hamilton’ true feelings toward Washington, as he argues that Hamilton did not really care for his commander. Hamilton’s feelings are colored by his frustration of not gaining a command, a path he believed was a necessity for post-war success. He resented Washington for keeping him as his aide de camp and viewed his commander as “ill-humored….coarse and sometimes petty, vain, ill-tempered, inconsiderate, insecure, inelegant, and unoriginal in his thinking.” But, Hamilton realized that Washington was honest and honorable and essential to the American cause that required a “fabricated Washington” for the American people to believe in. Hamilton would eventually resign and Washington would finally appoint him to a command at Yorktown that sealed his reputation for bravery and leadership. In stark contrast at the end of the war, Jefferson faced an investigation of his leadership as governor of Virginia.

Ferling’s treatment of the Washington-Hamilton relationship is enhanced because of the knowledge gained writing an excellent biography of Washington, THE ASCENT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON: THE HIDDEN POLITICAL GENIUS OF AN AMERICAN ICON. This was apparent after the revolution when the issues of military back pay and pensions threatened to become a military revolt. Both he and Hamilton agreed on the need to develop a program to pay off the government’s debt, but it did not stop Washington from seeing “menacing qualities in Hamilton that nudged him to assure that his former aide remained a loyal follower, not an enemy.”

The fundamental difference between Jefferson and Hamilton was clear early on. Jefferson stressed the expansion of individual freedom and independence. Hamilton emphasized the wellbeing of the nation. Ferling is correct in arguing that “Jefferson had become a revolutionary largely in the hope of securing, enlarging, and sustaining personal liberties. Hamilton’s experience in the Revolutionary War led him to believe that liberty could never exist unless the nation was strong and secure.” These world views would color their heated relationship for years.

Ferling’s chapter on Jefferson’s life in Paris is important in gaining an understanding of his belief system and interaction with others. The author’s description of his relationship with the John and Abagail Adams is very poignant in light of their later political feuds. Jefferson’s loneliness is apparent as he still had not recovered from the death of his wife Martha. Ferling explores the Maria Cosway affair and his budding relationship with Sally Hemmings as a means of explaining how desperate Jefferson was to fill the void in his life. A part from personal issues, Ferling describes Jefferson’s views that encompassed his love for the French people, disdain for absolutism and monarchy, including his support for the events of 1789. What is key is that the philosophy that Jefferson crossed the Atlantic with was reinforced in France and are an accurate guide as to how he would resume his public career once he returned to the United States.

While Jefferson was off in Paris, Hamilton was involved with the Constitutional Convention that replaced the Articles of Confederation. For Hamilton the government’s indebtedness was the most important issue and the problem that he faced was that “while virtually every delegate came prepared to increase the powers of the national government at the expense of the states, none was willing to jeopardize the vital interests of his state.” Hamilton’s philosophy became widely known from this process as Ferling describes how Hamilton pulled back the curtain that concealed the thoughts of conservative Americans. They had not dreamed of sweeping social or political change. For them, a powerful nation state should be created that would allow men of finance to be free from the shackles of England to invest, make money, and secure their wealth. For Hamilton, inequality was just the nature of things and he was not inclined to remedy these disparities. He was an elite who wanted to preserve his status and this anti-democratic belief would be the core of his thought for the remainder of his life. Hamilton did work to gain passage of the new Constitution by taking on a high percentage of the burden to prepare THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, and once he became Secretary of the Treasury he was able to implement his plans to preserve and develop the new nation. Ideas such as a National Bank, Assumption of debt by the government, building the Coast Guard, and contributing to a strong executive branch of government were all were major contributions that historians believe were Hamilton’s greatest achievements as our government and economy today follow the principles he developed.

The period following the inauguration of Washington reflects the true disdain that Jefferson and Hamilton felt for each other. On issue after issue their disagreements reflected their hostility toward one another. Ferling does a remarkable job explaining the basis for their disagreements and describes the political repercussions. Today we dread the level of political partisanship, but when one looks back at the nastiness of the 1790s, one might argue that we are somewhat tame today in comparison. The author provides wonderful anecdotes that reflect the chasm between the two men. For example, during a visit to Jefferson’s residence in New York, Hamilton pointed to three pictures on the wall and asked who their subjects were. Jefferson responded; “Bacon, Locke, and Newton” three of the greatest men of history. Hamilton retorted that the greatest man in history was Julius Caesar.

Ferling seems to sympathize with Jefferson in that he believed that once the assumption of debt issue was settled in return for moving the capitol to the Potomac River region that there would be a few areas of disagreement. However, once Hamilton launched the rest of his economic program Jefferson claimed to have been deceived. It is unlikely that Jefferson was that naïve. But once the Whiskey Tax, the National Bank, and Hamilton’s plan for manufacturing became public, Jefferson was pushed over the edge as he feared that the United States would be turned into a monarchical state that replicated England. As the war in Europe expanded with England joining the alliance against France, foreign policy would enter the equation with the Genet Affair and Jay Treaty that would further exacerbate tensions between Jefferson and Hamilton.

The partisanship was further reflected in newspapers, one for each side that became the mouthpieces of the two men. Hamilton and Jefferson’s cohort, James Madison would publish numerous essays that skewered their opponents. Jefferson’s misreading of Washington’s views
contributed to the problem in that he believed the president had an open mind. Jefferson did his best to besmirch Hamilton in the eyes of Washington by providing as many damaging documents as he could. However, Washington blamed Jefferson for the rise of the nasty political factionalism that had developed, in addition to the fact that the president supported Hamilton’s economic program and vision for the future. Jefferson’s hatred of Hamilton is best seen in Jefferson’s comment to Washington, “Hamilton was a man whose history, from the moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the country which had not only received him and given him his bread, but its honors.”

Ferling carries the narrative through the end of Washington’s presidency, the Adams administration and the election of 1800. What is clear in the last third of the book is that Ferling maintains a soft spot for Jefferson and doesn’t miss an opportunity to disparage Hamilton. Once Hamilton became a private citizen he could not let go of influencing events easily. He became more of a schemer to implement his grandiose ideas and his “Federalist agenda.” Ferling’s narrative reduces Hamilton to an individual who worked behind the scenes to manipulate governmental policy, individual opinion, and events to achieve his nefarious goals. A case in point is the election of 1800 where Hamilton worked overtly and covertly to undermine Adams’ reelection through pamphlets, newspaper articles, speeches, and private conversations defeat Adams. In the end he would throw his support to Jefferson to block Aaron Burr as the election came to a vote in the House of Representatives. Ferling believes that Hamilton suffered from a flawed temperament that dominated his actions which resulted in the end of the Federalist Party as he let his ego get in the way of the changing political culture that had developed. As far as Jefferson is concerned he is raised to a level of respectability that does not exist in the first half of the book. Jefferson may have cut a deal with the Federalists to gain the Presidency, but Ferling rationalizes that by doing so he saved the union.

It is interesting that one of the early songs in the musical “Hamilton,” “I am not going to throw away my shot,” it's star, Lin-Manuel Miranda describes a man who would never give up an opportunity, however as Ferling describes the duel scene with Burr, that is exactly what he did. Perhaps as Ron Chernow suggests, Hamilton had enough, and it was a respectable way of committing suicide. Whatever one thinks of these two men, their impact on the creation of the republic, and the legacy that exits today, it is important to remember the time period in which they lived, and how fervently they believed in their ideals and how they tried to do what they deemed best for the new nation. Ferling’s book is a strong comparative study and it provides a true understanding of how America began and provides strong clues of what it was about to become.

[Marilyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of my professors in college was Broadus Mitchell. He was the foremost Hamiltonian scholar of his day, author of multiple biographies of Hamilton and associates. Not surprisingly, my freshman year at Hofstra's New College with Broadus Mitchell was an intensive study of Alexander Hamilton and the founding of America. The textbook was (surprise!) one of the several biographies of Hamilton authored by Broadus Mitchell.

When I had was given the opportunity to review this book, I was intrigued. I wondered what the author could tell me I hadn't read elsewhere and if he could tell the story better or differently, perhaps offer some fresh insights.

I have patience with history books. I don't expect it to read like fiction. Much to my delight, John Ferling's opening chapters in which he compares and examines the youth, upbringing and psychological makeup of both men is beautifully written -- entertaining and lively. Perceptive. Astute. What drove them, what inspired them to become the men who built America.

All was going swimmingly well until the war began. The Revolutionary War.

I am not a war buff and was not expecting a play-by-play of the revolution. But there it was. Battle by battle, troop movement by troop movement. I could feel my brain switch from engaged to stupefied. I'm not sure why the full details of the war are included. Aside from showcasing Hamilton's military career (doable in a few paragraphs), it adds little to my understanding of either man. As far as I'm concerned, it mainly adds hundreds of pages where a page or two of summary would have sufficed.

If you are a military history buff, you might like it. If not, skip the war and move on. It's a long book that includes a lot of great material. When Ferling is writing about the character and personality of his two extraordinary subjects, he's lively and illuminating, but when he lapses into "authoritative" mode, it bogs down. Seriously dull. I read a lot of history, stuff that other people think is boring and which I find fascinating so it's got to be pretty stultifying before I think it's boring.

Yet it's too good to miss, so skip sections in which you aren't interested and read the rest. It is extremely uneven with sections so gripping I couldn't put it down and others so dreary I couldn't stay awake. I am disinterested in battles and troop movements, so maybe I'm the wrong person to judge, but I cannot see how this material adds anything useful. Jefferson never fought in the war. Hamilton did, but he was not a "military man." Even though he had a distinguished war record, being a warrior was not a core piece of his character or particularly relevant to his story. Several hundred pages could (and should) be deleted.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two of the most influential men in American history. The author said it well when he commented (sorry, this isn't a quote ... I'm paraphrasing) that there are lots of statues dedicated to Jefferson, but we live in Hamilton's world. True enough. Hamilton was the consummate advocate of a strong central government with economic control through a central bank. Jefferson advocated extreme individual freedom, leaving most government to local authorities.

It amuses me that Hamilton is the darling of the GOP while Jefferson is the Liberal ideal. Given Hamilton's belief in strong central government and Jefferson's preference for isolationism, individualism and decentralization -- well, it pretty much defines our nation's massive problem with cognitive dissonance.

If you're a history buff with a serious interest in early American history, there is much to like. It is said that "Both men were visionaries, but their visions of what the United States were diametrically opposed." It may have been true in 1780, but it has long ceased to have any current relevance. In the end, the strands of their opposing philosophies have gotten twisted into a single ball of thread, both necessary to our American dream.

Jefferson and Hamilton is the story of the struggle -- public and ultimately personal -- between two major figures in our country's history. It ended when Alexander Hamilton died in a duel with Aaron Burr, Jefferson's vice president.

Worth reading for sure, but not light entertainment. This is history buff material. Fortunately, there are still a few of us around.

[Sarah (Presto agitato) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book compares and contrasts the political viewpoints of Jefferson and Hamilton, starting with biographical background on each and then focusing on their time in Washington's cabinet and their political disagreements afterwards. It is a readable study that is generally fair to its subjects. Something about Hamilton and Jefferson seems to inspire their biographers to take sides even more than 200 years later, so it is refreshing to get a more balanced view.

I do take issue with the author's choice to frame some of the debate in an anachronistic "conservative/liberal" dichotomy meant to be analogous to our current era. For example, Ferling characterizes Hamilton's choice to back the Constitution as conservative. I understand that he is contrasting Hamilton's more reserved views about popular rule to Jefferson's democratic stance, but the Constitution overturned the previous system, creating a government unlike any other at that time. Hamilton was the only signer from New York and worked very hard to secure ratification in the face of a great deal of opposition in his state. He was hardly propping up the established system. Later, a perennial charge by the Jeffersonians against Hamilton was that he didn't really support the Constitution because he wanted something more monarchical; they didn't see backing the Constitution as a traditionalist move either. It's possible that Jefferson would have pushed for something more radical, but he wasn't there at the time and claimed to be generally in favor of what they came up with. He did clash with Hamilton later over interpretation, but not really over the wisdom of the document itself.

Ferling frames a lot of the discussion in the context of Hamilton as the representative of the elite, monied class and Jefferson as a social revolutionary and voice of the people. This holds up for some things, but is vastly oversimplified. (It falls apart altogether when you consider Jefferson's near silence on the 15-20% of the population that was enslaved.) This book is more successful in discussing the events and personalities of the time, but weaker when drawing parallels to modern politics.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not an impressive work, I'm afraid, because it seems to lack a purpose. If it is a dual biography, it needs a lot of fleshing out. I don't think anything was added to what Chernow said concerning Hamilton and a great deal was left out. He certainly did not come alive on these pages and the issues Hamilton tackled are not presented in nearly as much depth. The presentation on Jefferson comes to an end with the death of Hamilton, despite the fact that Jefferson's presidency continued for more than four years.

As inadequate as this is, 90% of the book deals with the personages and events rather than the ideologies they espoused. Discussion of their ideas is dispersed, repetitive, and not particularly in depth. The buildup to the War of 1812, including the Embargo Act of 1807, is nowhere to be found. The continued debate over the First and Second Banks of the United States are missing as well. Hamilton may have died in 1804, but the problems he dealt with didn't.

And then there's page 361. Among the many, many ridiculous statements and sentiments somehow packed into one page is the idea that Hamiltonianism led to our current "incredibly powerful chief executive, gargantuan military, repeated intervention in foreign affairs, and political system in the thrall of great wealth..."

I would attribute that less than an ideology intentionally building that world than I would to "result of WWII."

Wouldn't recommend this book. Pick up Chernow for Hamilton and Jefferson's papers for that man himself. Wouldn't mind finding a good biography on Jefferson, but this wasn't it.

[Grumpus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. As a big reader/listener of US Revolutionary time period, I have read many books about Jefferson and my favorite founding father, Hamilton. I have read many outstanding biographies of these men which, as you would expect, follow their lives chronologically. What I loved about this book was that it followed these two men simultaneously. When one of the two was doing something at a certain point in their life, we learn was the other was doing at that time. Not just at pivotal moments in their lives, but also the mundane.

As I said, I would say I am a student of this period of US History, and this book provided many additional insights simply due to the way the information was presented. A great read.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

One could read the introduction to say the author believes Thomas Jefferson equals Bill Clinton and Alexander Hamilton equals George W. Bush. The introduction also contains the assertion that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that “all men are born equal” when it says we are created equal. After that inauspicious start, the first two-thirds of the book are well done, relatively concise, parallel biographies of the two title subjects. Readers could pick up most of what they should know about them here. Their public accomplishments and private failures are both covered in a compelling narrative.

As with all too many men who achieve greatness in public life, Hamilton and Jefferson had some incredible moral failures—Hamilton’s marital infidelity and hotheadedness; Jefferson’s constant personal extravagance and debt, slaveholding, and relationship with Sally Hemmings. Ferling addresses these matters without apologizing for them, but also without diminishing Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s immense contributions to the formation of a nation unlike any other.

It is not until two-thirds into the book that the subtitle—“The Rivalry That Forged a Nation”—begins to fit. Until then, Hamilton and Jefferson had largely operated in different spheres, apparently having no real disagreement with each other. For instance, during the Revolutionary War, Hamilton fought; Jefferson wrote the Declaration and served as Governor of Virginia. During the Constitutional Convention and the battle over ratification, Hamilton was intimately involved while Jefferson was serving in Paris. But for the next hundred pages, the text hits their disputing visions hard. The rivalry begins in the early 1790s with the two serving in Washington’s cabinet and Hamilton’s proposal for a national bank. Jefferson starts to see nefarious things in Hamilton’s financial programs—a hierarchical society; centralized, even monarchal, government, with a loss of state sovereignty; and a nation of mostly urban dwellers. In contrast, Jefferson (and James Madison with him) saw the spirit of 1776 as one of limited central government, emphasis on individual liberty and equal opportunities, and a focus on land ownership and agriculture. Jefferson fought against Hamilton, so much so that the champion of limited government was not above contradiction: he put a man on the State Department payroll whose job was to publish a newspaper attacking Hamilton and his programs. The rivalry led to the formation of the first two major political parties, the Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party.

Throughout most of the 1790s, Hamilton was the victor. It is hard to tell from Ferling’s account why Hamilton was so successful, except if the reason is as simple as that the man who acted above it all—George Washington—almost always sided with him. Washington’s death does coincide with Hamilton’s increasingly irrational behavior (including burning bridges with John Adams) and political fall. Jefferson saw his own victory in the unique 1800 presidential election as a triumph of his own viewpoint and a return to the spirit of 1776. Nevertheless, as Ferling notes, much of what America became was what Hamilton foresaw.

I still think the subtitle overplays the text. There was certainly a rivalry and the competing views of Hamilton and Jefferson / Madison reverberate today. But much of the book does not address that and it is quite short on explaining the long-term impact of the rivalry. Beyond the introduction, there are also some further hints that Ferling views the politics of the past through a misguided lens of the politics of the present. He essentially writes that Hamilton engaged in “right-wing politics,” calling a staple of such politics the labeling of those who disagree with the administration’s foreign policy as “disloyal.” Near the end Ferling strangely calls John McCain “extremely conservative.” In fact, Ferling appears to use the the label “conservative” throughout the book as a pejorative one, but he never defines what he means by it. It leads to some contradictions if we take the ordinary meaning. For instance, at one point Ferling calls Hamilton’s Constitutional Convention plan the “most radical” and also the “most conservative.”

If you ignore the premise of the subtitle and some of these quibbles, though, the book serves well as a biographical highlight reel of the lives of these two men and the formation of the United States. Ferling knows his subjects well (so well, in fact, that he feels free to offer lots of speculation of their motives, only some of which Ferling acknowledges as speculation). His knowledge shows and he writes well.

A final note: I read an advanced reader’s copy received as part of the Goodreads giveaway program. In addition to the misquoting of the Declaration in the introduction (referred to above), there were numerous typographical errors. Those errors were presumably fixed by the final edition.

[Cameron H · Rating 2 out of 5]

When you read a book like this, I think it’s fair to expect a certain degree of objectivity. You want the facts of the subjects’ lives and philosophies to be presented in an (hopefully) engaging manner with little editorializing. Unfortunately, Ferling can’t seem to keep his own bias under control. It’s very clear from the beginning, that Ferling prefers one man over the other, and that man’s name rhymes with: Jhomas Tefferson.

Beneath a veneer of impartiality, time and again, Ferling awkwardly limbo dances his way through the unsavory details of Jefferson’s life, while grasping at microscopic straws to condemn Hamilton.

For one example, Ferling posits that Hamilton *might* have destroyed or doctored evidence of using government funds for speculation. However, he bases this solely on circumstantial evidence. There’s absolutely no solid evidence to corroborate this claim, or if there is, it wasn’t included in the book. What we do know, is that Hamilton, after a thorough investigation conducted by his political enemies (Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable), he was cleared of all charges. You would think, if there were any truth behind the charges, of all people, his enemies would probably want to use that against him. Even after his death, Ferling writes that Jefferson - Hamilton’s enemy, and ostensibly, the reason for this book to exist - told John Adams that he felt Hamilton was an honest and good man. However, none of this seems to matter to Ferling who is determined to paint Hamilton as nothing more than a Machiavellian schemer.

Now, contrast this with how he treats Thomas Jefferson. Ferling introduces Sally Hemings as “the woman about to enter [Jefferson’s] life.” I mean, wow. Right there. Think about it. Let’s just set aside the fact that she was only 14-years-old at the time, the idea that his slave had the agency to “enter into his life” is insulting. She was a slave. And not in the wacky Kanye West “slavery was voluntary” version. TJ owned Sally since she was 3-years-old. She didn’t have a choice, so let’s not pretend like this was some grand love story. Ferling then goes on to try to excuse the affair by basically saying, Sally was very pretty - looking very much like his dead wife (Sally was his wife’s half-sister) - and even if she did escape, the entire country (not just the South) was racist, so where was she going to go? In other words, “Sure, he raped his slave, but she was just so fucking hot. Plus, she had nowhere else to go, so, like, can you really blame him?” (Spoiler Alert: Yes. Yes, I can).

Look, the fact of the matter is, the Founding Father’s were a bunch of brilliant men who somehow accomplished amazing things despite having mashed shit for brains. They were all flawed. All of them. They were human, not saints. And when you write a book like this, one that seems to want to canonize one man and villainize the other, you’re not being fair - to either man. Not only that, it breaks the the reader’s trust in the author. Once the author’s bias is revealed, it calls into question the entire narrative. How much of this is speculation or fact? Are you withholding information?

Ultimately, there is some interesting History to be found here that is sullied by the author’s bias. Honestly, I think I would have respected it more had it simply been titled: Thomas Jefferson Was the Best Dude Ever (And Here’s Why He’s Better Than That Asshole Alexander Hamilton).

[Joshua · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ferling has a solid reputation as a scholar, but I can't say I felt like I found that here. This book was a mess - I give it two stars only because it is, at least, reasonably researched. I have several large issues with this book. Firstly, the book is barely about 'the rivalry that forged a nation'. Second, it is quite obvious that Ferling considers Hamilton the villain and Jefferson the hero. Third, I honestly don't think Ferling did a good job of understanding either character.

This book suffers from perilously poor direction. Up until about Chapter 9, it is an unnecessarily detailed but oddly empty look at the lives of our titular characters until that point, before either one of them met the other. In terms of what we needed to frame the rivalry, the first eight chapters I think could have been condensed into as few as two chapters. Ferling trades off between the two for the rest of the book, but fails to stick close to his thesis, instead giving the impression that he means this to be something of a double-biography, though without the detail or insight that would make that kind of book valuable.

I will admit that I might be somewhat biased, but after reading Chernow's Hamilton I cannot read a book like this that takes the 'traditional' view of Hamilton very seriously. Chernow definitely delves into Hamilton's psyche better, finding more convincing reasons for the flaws in his character. Honestly, Ferling doesn't seem to be able to help himself - he ends most of the speculation about motives with passages that boil down to 'but maybe Hamilton was just evil'. Ferling repeatedly attacks Hamilton's actions, but glosses over most of Jefferson's faults, and generally does everything he can to leave Jefferson's actions, personality, and honor unblemished.

I think Ferling's greatest crime, though, is giving us what amounts to an uninteresting retread of the basic understanding most people have of this rivalry. Only the last few pages seem to make any coherent point about the rivalry, and then, not well. Ferling simply fails to give us any deeper understanding of either character or the rivalry that defined the 1790s. I am glad, at least, that he brushes aside the idea that Washington was a puppet in Hamilton's hands.

In total, I am left with the question of why Ferling wrote this book. There was a good premise, which is what made me pick the book up in the first place, but the book absolutely failed in making good on the concept. Ferling's biases threaten to make this book not just badly put together, but just legitimately bad history. I would not recommend this book - if anyone is interested in the fascinating dichotomy of Jefferson v. Hamilton's America, I recommend instead picking up firstly Chernow's Hamilton biography, and then a Jefferson biography with more insight, like Joseph J. Ellis' American Sphinx.

[Charles Gonzalez · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an avid Hamiltonian I sought this book out for its unique take on the two Founders. Unlike other reviewers who found the treatment of Hamilton incomplete, I enjoyed the author's approach which in my mind sought to describe the key aspects of both lives and their intertwining when it occurred. I read Chernow when it appeared and other volumes to know enough of the detail of Hamilton's life. In a relatively short (362 pages) effort, Ferling nicely grasps the key elements of both mens personality and political philosophy. This would not be the book for most readers unacquainted with the lives of these Founders, but the parallel description does seek to connect the dots between these two remarkable and historically essential men. The story ultimately ends on a sad note, and Ferling does a good job of describing Hamilton's descent into political oblivion and recklessness. Perhaps the impact was greater because Hamilton's life was squeezed into such a short volume, but the final quarter of his life seemed more tragic and unnecessary as described by Ferling than it did with Chernow. Another plus was an increased appreciation for Jefferson. While I still find his vision for America naive and limiting, he brought his commitment to equality and democracy ( at least for whites) to the forefront and blunted the excesses of the High Federalists.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Ferling, a respected scholar of the American Revolution, sets forth the ideological differences between two of our most influential Founding Fathers, and recounts the poisonous enmity between them that arose as a result. The story is relevant even today, since the bitter partisan divide America is now experiencing is quite similar to what threatened to tear apart the fabric of the country apart in its infancy.

Ferling provides a more dispassionate (i.e., less hagiographic) portrait of the two men that many recent biographies. He is quite good at laying out the philosophies of these two great thinkers, and showing how much they both contributed to the tenor and construction of the new nation. Nevertheless, when it comes to dissecting the personal characteristics of the two men, Ferling goes easier on the shortcomings of Jefferson than he does on Hamilton, even making Hamilton sound a bit like he verged on insanity toward the end of his life.

Hamilton was certainly more volatile and impulsive than Jefferson, but the actions instigated by each of them ended up mirroring the other’s. The main difference, in my view, was that Hamilton was more open about his feelings and actions than Jefferson; Jefferson’s behaviors could be just as egregious, but he cleverly operated almost exclusively behind the scenes, using sycophantic lackeys to do his dirty work (most notably, Virginia Congressman William Branch Giles, newspaperman Philip Freneau, and future presidents James Madison and James Monroe). As Ron Chernow observed in his 2004 masterful biography Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson was a “proficient political ventriloquist” who was “skilled at using proxies while keeping his own lips tightly sealed.” He used other men to hound Hamilton and discredit him, through whatever combination of truth and lies were necessary to accomplish that goal.

In spite of all the time and effort spent by each of these men in attacking the other, they also managed to make major contributions to the establishment of the American Republic. It was largely thanks to Hamilton that the nation was able to grow strong enough to overcome the defects it suffered when bound only by the Articles of Confederation. But Hamilton’s vision included the possibility of a nationstate bound to a plutocracy.

As for Jefferson, it was his radical egalitarian vision (at least in theory) that put into words the dream of equality of opportunity that still inspires those seeking freedom from oppression. (Nevertheless, no matter what interpretation later generations made of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was a racist who “believed that blacks were slow, lazy, oversexed, less capable than whites of reasoning, and on the whole an inferior race.” Although he claimed he wanted to abolish slavery, he did not want blacks, once freed, to remain in the country.)

Ferling devotes some space to trying to explain Jefferson’s hypocritical divide between his professions about slavery and the actions he did, or rather, did not, take. Like other historians, Ferling makes a number of excuses for Jefferson. He does, however, admit that Jefferson absolutely would not consider emancipation without expatriation of freedmen and that “he refused to denounce the spread of slavery, and in private he made it clear that if the Union was torn asunder over the issue, he would stand with the South in defense of slavery.” Still, Ferling suggests that Jefferson was no worse than Washington, writing: “Like Washington, Jefferson made a conscious decision to keep others enslaved so that he might live the sumptuous life.”

But there were crucial differences between Washington and Jefferson on slavery. Washington, even Ferling admits, stated that if the Union broke up, he would move to the North and side with them, not with his home state of Virginia. Ferling does not go into Washington’s position on slavery in depth, presumably because it is beyond the purview of the book. But Washington not only struggled more with how to deal with slavery during his life, but would have freed his slaves at or before his death if he had been able to do so. Under the dower laws of the time, many of his slaves either belonged to Martha, or were married to slaves belonging to Martha. He refused to break up slave families, and Martha had no inclination to free her slaves. (After her husband died however, the slaves, who knew that Washington arranged for them to be freed when Martha died, were looking a little too happy for Martha’s comfort level, and she became uneasy that they would try to advance the date of her death. After a year, therefore, she freed them herself.) In contradistinction, Jefferson stipulated that only five of his slaves be freed even upon his death (all of them were from the Hemings family).

Regarding the invective and undermining engaged in by each man against the other, it is my distinct impression that Jefferson was the more venomous of the two, and did the most damage. His tactics, however, allowed him to escape the judgment of his fellows (and of history) more unscathed than did Hamilton.

Evaluation: Ferling breaks no new historical ground, but he is a spritely writer about an endlessly fascinating subject. He gives a much more balanced view of Jefferson than many other biographers, and does an excellent job in condensing and illuminating the political philosophies of Jefferson and Hamilton. If you are interested in the contributions of these two powerful and formidable men to the American project, this book makes a great introduction.

[Ric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jefferson and Hamilton famously didn’t like each other, despite the fact that Hamilton helped Jefferson get elected in 1800. I did enjoy the first part where their lives at the time were compared, but the last part where they were both part of Washington’s cabinet was my favorite. A solid history of two of the US’ founding fathers.

[Alidlelee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy enough to read. Interesting to contrast these guys’ ideas for the future of the US and how it turned out. By far the funniest piece is when they call John Adams “His Rotundity.”

[Oma · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a well researched book. It compares and contrasts Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The book begins by examining their early lives and aspirations. Jefferson was the son of privilege and spending years reading and studying in his home after completing his formal education. Hamilton came from humble, scandalous beginnings and was able to come to the American colonies to study due to the generous support of benefactors who recognized his intelligence and potential.

These men were major players in the formation of the United States, though they wanted different things for it. Jefferson was an advocate of total democracy and agrarianism. Hamilton was in favor of a strong central government and military. He was fundamental in the formation the banking system in the early days of the government and was under the support of George Washington. Hamilton had dreams of becoming great through military accomplishment, but was thwarted by being appointed Washington's aide de camp. This, however, set him on the path to being an influential power broker. he worked behind the scenes influencing and manipulating to get his agenda adopted. Hamilton worked hard to get the Constitution passed and was the main writer and publisher of The Federalist Papers, assisted in this by fellow writers James Madison and John Jay.

Jefferson was also a man of vision for the nation, but his vision for the country was one of a more pastoral nation, where the inhabitants lived in rural areas rather than cities. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but did not help much in the war for Independence, retreating instead to spend those years in Monticello. He enjoyed his time as ambassador to France, though he developed a strong dislike of monarchies, and planned to returned there, but Washington asked him to be Secretary of State.

The foibles of each man are presented in the book. Both thought highly of themselves and both were involved in affairs which affected their plans. Hamilton's relationship with the Reynolds and Jefferson's with Sally Hemming and others caused them to make political decisions which may not have otherwise been made. As time went by, Jefferson portrayed himself as being more tolerant of his political rivals, but that may have been his desire for leaving a good legacy behind as he aged. Hamilton's attempts at manipulation become more obvious and offensive as he tried to maintain his power in influencing elections and policy. His death by dueling with Aaron Burr could have been avoided as Burr gave him opportunities to recant, but, ultimately, did his pride prevail or did he want an escape from what he would see as a loss of power?

Both men lived extravagant lifestyles and incurred debt, though Jefferson spent most of his life living luxuriously while in debt, while Hamilton did not overspend until near the end of his life, when he purchased farmland and built a home for his family. Even so, Hamilton had the ability to repay the debt working as a lawyer, which he may have done had he lived. Jefferson frequently had to sell slaves and land to repay debt, though he was never debt free. Interestingly, he reduced the federal debt significantly while he was in office.

The book provided a good history lesson and both men were seen as human, with faults as well as great visions. The country we now live in is the result of both of their efforts; perhaps, in the early years, our nation needed them both, one to balance the other's ideas of governing and growing the new country. We tend to treat the founding Fathers as saints, but they were human. One wonders how they would have survived the current political climate and campaigns. I am recommending this book to family and friends. There are some grammatical errors, which I expect will be corrected by editing prior to the book release. I have not been compensated in any way (other than being given a copy of this book to review) and my opinion on the book is entirely my own.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

After watching Hamilton 5 times it’s interesting to get another, historical, point of view of events. This book is definitely slanted in favor of Jefferson “a modern day Democrat” and against Hamilton who according to this book wanted a King instead of a Republic.

[LindaJ^ · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am glad I read this right after The Great Divide: The Conflict between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation, as it was fascinating to see two historians reach such different conclusions about Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington based on the same documents! This author states in the opening that he is quite fond of Jefferson but that his research led him to think more kindly of Hamilton. If so, then he must really not have thought much of him as the book is clearly biased towards Jefferson! This author also portrayed Washington in a far less favorable manner.

The author starts by moving back and forth between the lives of Hamilton and Jefferson, objectively comparing and contrasting them. As he moves to the Revolutionary War and through the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, his objectivity wanes and he begins to do some speculating on motives, all based on historical evidence - pretty much the same historical evidence used by Fleming in the Great Divide to reach far different conclusions! Readers of both need to keep an open mind and reach their own opinions!

I enjoyed the book in large part because it was such a contrast to the The Great Divide. As noted, both books are using the similar historical evidence, yet reach such different conclusions! This book spends more time exploring the specifics of Hamilton's and Jefferson's experiences during the Revolutionary War while The Great Divide spends more time on the interactions with the French after the French revolution and on the treaties and attempts to form treaties with the British. If you like American history, I highly recommend reading these two books back-to-back!

One note on the audio narration of this book - for the first time ever, I had to read a book at higher than 1x speed.

[Michael O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book as it chronicled in parallel the careers and personal lives of these great rivals. Their competing political thought, to this day, continues as an undercurrent in American politics. Overall, as I progressed through this book, I was starting to think that the author was more favorably disposed to Jefferson and his egalitarian, limited government philosophy. He does show in great detail the lengths by which, towards the end of his life, Hamilton was willing to go to thwart the popular will in favor of Jefferson. However, just when this was seeming to be the case, the author does condemn Jefferson for his hypocrisy involving slavery.

Rather than rehashing a lot of commonly known historical facts, this book does an excellent job especially in showing the often complex interactions between Jefferson and Hamilton. Most interestingly, this is shown in the 1800 election in which there was a tie during the presidential election. Although bitter enemies by this time, Ferling shows how Hamilton's machinations ultimately engineered the election in Jefferson's favor over another Hamilton rival, Aaron Burr --- that one of which would ultimately escalate to the point of costing Hamilton his life.

I highly recommend this book ---- great for any Jefferson or Hamilton fans, history buffs, or students of constitutional law or political science.

[Grace Best-Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite fascinating! While the author did stray into the area of personal opinion at times, whether for good or ill, I learned a great deal about not only both of these men, but also the times they lived through and some of their contemporaries. Combined with other histories of the same time period, I now have a much broader and complete view of our countries beginnings and the Founding Fathers. Ferling delves satisfyingly deep into motivations and the complexities of personality. He gives the whys to many decisions and events that I was heretofore only shallowly acquainted with. Politics is always a maelstrom, and Ferling does a great job of sorting out and explaining the early years of our political system. And while there is a good deal of intriguing detail, I never felt bogged down by it. The writing keeps the story moving sprightly along. Well worth the read!

One major criticism, however, is the very last line of the book. It skews the entire emphasis of the book onto something that was not its major concern. The fact expressed in the final sentence should have been included in a more appropriate way, one that didn't shift the entire premise of the book onto something else.

[Emilija · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love John Ferling as a writer. I’ve read a lot of his early American politics books, and for the most part, they’re pretty good.

This book was also pretty good. I think my major complaint about it is actually the book title, which is Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation. This was not really about their rivalry, and was more a dual biography. If we’re looking into the rivalry between the two statesmen, then why was a play by play of the Revolutionary War necessary? (That was a pretty slow and arduous chapter for me, especially as I’m not a fan of military history).

Other than that, it was pretty good in the comparisons, showing Jefferson as the liberal and Hamilton as the capitalist of the early republic. I especially liked the final chapter where Ferling looks at the influence of Jefferson and Hamilton on the present day. Ferling also has a really easy reading style, which makes his books quite enjoyable to read.

[Eschargot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Continuing my never ending fascination with this period in US history. A well written book delving into the characters of two of the most brilliant (albeit flawed) founders. We continue to love the idealism of Jefferson while living in a Hamiltonian world.

[Fernando · Rating 1 out of 5]

A little too much time spent giving "color" to the personal lives of these two men and not enough time on their political differences.

[Brian Manville · Rating 4 out of 5]

When people think of the founding fathers, the general impression is that these men were intelligent, idealistic people with a dispassionate attitudes. These fathers have their different opinions on how the future nation would be founded, but any disagreements were gentlemanly and decent. A cursory dig into history proves that our founding fathers could be as base and petty on a level that would rival that of a reality TV "star".

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton could not have come from more diverse backgrounds and also held widely differing opinions on what America should be like. Jefferson, descended from landed gentry yet believed in a rural economy and weaker federal government that suited the ordinary farmer of his native Virginia. Hamilton came from the British West Indians born out of wedlock to a British woman and regarded the future world power as needing a strong central government. In many respects these two epitomized the British vs. French views of the Age of Passion in 1790's America.

Jefferson was for the most part a gentleman farmer who practiced law and sought to serve his native Virginia who believed society worked best when government was closer to the people. Hamilton, educated at what is now Columbia University and then passed the bar in New York state after the war. Hamilton had come to believe in the new nation needed a strong central government after seeing the weakness of the Confederate government. These weaknesses were not directly seen by Jefferson, as he spent much of the time in France as an ambassador.

Both were picked by George Washington to serve in his inaugural cabinet (Jefferson at State, Hamilton at Treasury). However, Jefferson soon came to see that Hamilton was fond of intrigue and trying to order legislation to match his Federalist positions. While keeping his own network of sources within the government, Jefferson was slow to realize that the political views of Washington with those of Hamilton were stronger than in-state bonds with himself. Hamilton was able to use Washington's support to push his agenda through Congress.

Even after Washington served two terms as president, Hamilton attempted to sway the election of 1796 for Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina; however the plan backfired spectacularly, ending with a resentful Adams as president and his rival Jefferson as vice-president. Later, Hamilton's machinations in the election of 1800 resulted not only in the election of his rival, but the start of his bitter feud with Aaron Burr and the destruction of the Federalist party. No one from other than Democratic(-Republican) party held the presidency for the next 40 years until William Henry Harrison of the Whig party in 1841. The resulting argument between large and small government continues to this day, indicating that the issue has not been truly settled.

Ferling tells a compelling story of two intelligent, driven men who held opposing views and who did not get along yet - in their own ways - worked to build the nation we have today, flaws and all. Given the stakes during the Age of Passion, the fact that we continue to debate the nature and reach of the federal government is a testament to the ability of the republic to try each option on its merits as the country grows and evolves.

BOTTOM LINE: An eye-opening account of two men and the political philosophies they espoused.

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book, providing a dual and specific biography of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The author concentrates on the philosophical differences between the two men. He shows in detail how their different backgrounds and their actions during the fight for independence influenced their very separate political and economic frameworks. Later, in the tumultuous early days of independence, their competing philosophies set the framework for the nation’s initial partisan clashes as both men rose to prominence and influenced nearly every major political argument. The book does a great job of diving into the details of what Jeffersonism and Hamiltonism actually means. The author points out that both men, as adroit and successful politicians, readily hid or compromised on their fundamental beliefs to gain desired ends. A fair portion of the latter parts of the book are spent going through the various political fights in detail to peel back their actions from their philosophy. The author maintains a steady theme that both men created separate fundamental -isms which have defined many of the competing concepts throughout American history. The epilogue does a great job in explaining how these competing concepts continue in America today. Great for understanding politics in the era of the Founders.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-researched and well-written examination of the relationship and rivalry that existed between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

[Rebecca The Files of Mrs. E, · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was very well researched and did a great job telling the story of both men--as individuals and as rivals. Unfortunately I don't really care for either Jefferson or Hamilton and the more I learned about them the less I liked either of them. Not really the author's fault, but it did make for hard reading.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review Title: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy

I enjoyed this book, Jefferson and Hamilton: John Ferling book The Rivalry That Forged a Nation.

I had previously read a fair amount about Jefferson (including Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham); However, I had never read a book dedicated to Hamilton. This book has encouraged me to find such a book to learn more about Hamilton.

I have always felt Jefferson was complicated and a bit of an “odd duck”. He is praised highly by many today, but there are many conflicting parts of his story that make him a dubious hero of this era.

Though Hamilton made it on the US ten dollar note, he never made it to the US Presidency. Before reading this book I understood Hamilton was in George Washington’s cabinet and played a key role in establishing the federal and financial infrastructure of the new nation. However, this book opened my eyes to many other aspects of Hamilton’s impact on the time (both good and bad). I also learned that Hamilton, like Jefferson, had his own strange personality traits.

The book not only explains the complicated relationship between these two men, but maybe the most fascinating part of the book is Ferling contrasting of Hamilton and Jefferson personalities. In many ways the two could not have been more different:

1. One is born with great wealth and privilege and the other in the poorest and most desperate circumstances imaginable.

2. One serves his country in the revolutionary war and the other avoids conflict of any type (at least when at all possible).

3. One is a strong speaker and the other is so non-verbal that some may have thought he was a mute.

4. One is an exceptionally gifted writer and the other a verbose writer who writing skills are just adequate.

5. One is pro-states’ rights and the other pro-federal power.

6. One is a big supporter of industry and commerce, while the other is passionate about maintain the American agrarian way of life.

7. One is full content to spent time at home with this family, the other can never find happiness when away from the center of power.

8. One is fully faithful to his wife but then loses her to illness and takes up with one of his slaves. The other is unfaithful to his wife, but ends up going back to her.

9. One lives to an old age, while the other dies at a relatively young age.

With all these contrasts maybe it was inevitable that they would end up being enemies. However, in a most interesting twist they share something in common. They both hate Aaron Burr and this hatred impacts both their lives. The old adage that “my enemies enemy is my friend” did not apply in this situation.

In the election for the US president in 1800, Hamilton ends up helping Jefferson win the job, by supporting Jefferson over a man he hated ever more: Aaron Burr. Aaron Burr ends up with the silver medal in this race for the Presidency and so becomes Jefferson’s VP (which was the original method used to determine who would by the US VP ). Jefferson tolerates Burr for a few years but then they have a major falling out before the election of 1804. Jefferson become obsessed with “getting Burr” for what he claims is Burr’s treason against the country. Jefferson declares Burr guilty of this crime even before Burr’s trail starts. Jefferson then continues his highly inappropriate micro-managing of the prosecution during the trial of Burr. In the end, Jefferson fails in his attempt to have Burr convicted and likely put to death for treason. Ferling spends little time on this sub-plot in this book, but I recommend “The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr: Law, Politics, and the Character Wars of the New Nation” by R. Kent Newmyer if you want to read more on this fascinating trial. Jefferson failure to convict Burr leads him to become a free man. Burr freedom allows him to continue his verbal and written war with Hamilton, which ultimately end in Burr killing Hamilton. On July 11, 1804, just across the Hudson River from what is known as Mid-Town Manhattan today, Hamilton and Burr arrange a duel. Early in the morning the two men meet and Burr ends up fatally wounding Hamilton (and he dies a couple days later from his wounds).

So the two rivals, Jefferson and Hamilton, who in so many ways are opposites, end up having a common enemy that almost destroys Jefferson with rage, but does destroy Hamilton.
Ferling is a great writer and his expertise is obvious when reading this book. I recommend this book for anyone who loves early American history.

[Ethan Healey]

DNF, therefore will not rate.

HOWEVER, the author basically gives you a two-way biography. He goes over Jefferson, then glances over Hamilton. You can clearly tell his love for Jefferson and his opposition for Hamitlon. He barely goes over the rivalry, and that's even when I skipped a few chapters to see if he did.

If you're looking for a brief biography of both men, this will do.

[Don · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a long time, Alexander Hamilton has been my favorite historical figure - his rise from a tiny Carribean island to one of the most influential founding fathers - has always captivated me. Perhaps because of that view, I've always held Jefferson as a founding father at arm's length, despite his obvious significance and importance as well.

What makes Ferling's work here so great, is that it pulls no punches on either figure. We learn of Hamilton's central role in getting the Constitution adopted and establishing the basic economic system and strong central government that led to so much growth for the United States. We also learn of his impetousness and his almost "death-wish" impulsiveness in seeking military glory. We learn and read about Jefferson's idealism, his eloquence in expressing individual freedoms and his faith in democracy. We also learn about his inability to ever address the abomination of slavery. Both founding fathers are presented for what they are - hugely significant men who achieved much for the early United States, but did so despite their many flaws.

Even with the recent Broadway hit popularizing Hamilton, I still believe many people don't realize how instrumental he was in establishing the Constitution, arranging the type of government and economy we have today. Jefferson, who rightfully gets many praises for his eloquence in the Declaration of Independence, knew it, referring to Hamilton as the "Colossus."

One of the more interesting aspects of the book is the way Ferling frames their rivalry - he discusses at the beginning about how practically all of our political debates throughout the history of the country can be traced to the competing visions espoused by Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton striving for a strong federal government that was active in establishing credit, allowing the financial system to take off and allow for investment, growth, etc; Jefferson focusing on individual liberties, expressing wariness of a strong federal government, favoring the states. In such framing, it is easy to see the battle lines for many of today's political arguments. One can also see how political ideology and parties evolve over time, as Hamilton appears more favored by Republicans, despite favoring a strong federal government at the expense of the States, and Jefferson long being championed as the founder of the Democratic Party, despite his aversion to strong government. Obviously, these are perhaps over-simplifications, but it does strike the reader how much of our politics and governing ideology is still based on the framework established by these two individuals.

However, I do think that in reading the book, and understanding how nasty the politics and rhetoric got between Hamilton's camp and Jefferson's camp at the time (as well as among other founding fathers, including Washington and Adams), one can make the argument that the real difference between Hamilton and Jefferson, and thus the real difference in our continued debates today, is not political, but cultural. And that cultural difference, as Ferling makes evident, is ironic. Hamilton, the immigrant who came from nothing and became one of the most successful lawyers in New York City and one of the most influential individuals in early goverment, represented the moneyed elite; the cultural conservative who feared the ruin of tradition and social stratification. Jefferson, the land and slave owner who inherited wealth (though his extravagance often left him in debt) and was obsessed in learning classics and science, championed the common individual, democratic participation in government, and the radicalness that entailed at the time.

All in all, Ferling provides a well-written examination of two complicated, flawed, and significant men. Anyone interested in history, and particularly Revolutionary War and Constitutional era U.S. History, will enjoy this book.

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book begins with a preface that gives a summation of the author's opinion about Jefferson and Hamilton, and an explanation of how eras throughout American history were either Jefferson influenced or Hamilton influenced. I disagreed with mostly everything the author said here. The explanations were very superficial and there was not any emphasis on how the current government is difficult to compare to the one we had in 1789. His opinion seemed to be that Jefferson or Hamilton arguments could fit directly into modern day government.

All of this was OK for me, because the preface is supposed to set up the book, it's scope, and target. I could get past the fact that I disagreed with the author fundamentally, and a preface naturally has superficial explanations. The rest of the book could be used to convince me. The task, set-up by the preface, was to dive deep into what Jefferson and Hamilton both stood for, highlight how they differed, and explain how their stances "Forged a nation". This was also my expectation for the book before even reading the preface.

Unfortunately, the book does not focus on this task. The book is at best a dual biography. If you have not read a Jefferson or Hamilton biography, you can learn something from this book, but if your goal is just to learn about the lives of these men and how they intersect, just read their separate biographies (I recommend Chernow's Hamilton and Meachem's Jefferson, although Meachem's is not of the same quality as Chernow's). There is not anything new in this book.

Some details about why it fails at it's stated goals:
- Spends too much space on their very early lives in comparison to the amount of space available in the book.
- Does not give any meaningful insight to their disagreements outside of what you would find in a biography. Nothing new.
- Disagreements covered post Washington are explaining how terrible Federalist policies were (Hamilton) and just stating that Jefferson was against them. The author is very biased toward Jefferson. After a thrashing of the worst of Federalist policies (Alien and Sedition acts), and how Jefferson opposed them, he gives a few sentences on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions set forth by Jefferson and Madison, and doesn't even bother stating Hamilton's opinion. I did not learn anything new on any of these items. I personally think that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions set up a perfect opportunity to dive into each man's view of an ideal constitution.
- Jefferson's Presidency is summed up in conclusion form (full of praise). How can some of the most influential years of Jefferson be disregarded and not analyzed from a Hamilton perspective given the goal of the book?

At the end of the book, the author somehow gets back to his goal in a quick conclusion. Jefferson was right, Hamilton views lead to a Plutocracy (even "extreme" conservatives like McCain acknowledge this....how McCain is an extreme conservative that has any relationship to Hamilton is probably besides the point) and a power hungry military complex like we have today.

[Caroline · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ferling admits in the introduction to this book that he came to write it holding Jefferson in much greater esteem than Hamilton - and it shows. He also claims he came to admire Hamilton and see much that was noble, praiseworthy and laudable in his character - reading this book you won't find much trace of the man who could inspire such words. I found this an incredibly one-sided recounting of the years of the Revolution and the early Republic; Ferling consistently highlights every bad aspect of Hamilton's character, every misjudged action, every petty or mean emotion, whilst equally consistently excusing or apologising for Jefferson.

A dual biography is always an interesting approach, but I found that this book contributed little new to the fields of study of either Jefferson or Hamilton, or the Revolution, the Constitution, Washington or the early Republic, for that matter. Until their paths crossed in Washington's cabinet, Hamilton and Jefferson scarcely even met, so the first half of this book is spent in tracing their parallel but entirely separate careers. And quite frankly it you want to read about either of those you'd be better off with Ron Chernow's masterful Alexander Hamilton and Jon Meacham or Joseph Ellis' books on Jefferson.

Ferling's anti-Hamilton animus even goes so far as to whitewash much of Aaron Burr's character. Reading this book you'd believe him to be in eminently sensible, level-headed, tolerant and accommodating fellow - not at all the scheming, manipulative politico interested solely in his own advancement, a man who was seen practising his aim for weeks before the duel and never expressed any regret in killing Alexander Hamilton, and who was later tried for treason by Jefferson for his plans to detach the western territories from the United States and set up his own independent country.

So all in all, I found this book immensely disappointing. I'll admit, I'm more of a Hamilton than Jefferson partisan, and this has contributed to my disappointment, but I only came to be so through reading biographies far more detailed, balanced and insightful than this.

[Kathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you were to peruse my bookshelves you would find a lot of fluff, and I don't mean dustbunnies, though you'd likely find those too, along with a resting cat or two or three. What you won't find a whole lot of are serious history books.

Now, it's not because I hate history or something like that, but..well, there's always a lovely gardening book to read, or a mystery, or a romance, or the latest book of poetry. History ends up towards the bottom of the stack.

But I did enter to win this book, because something about it intrigued me (hey, I've read Vidal's Burr, so I know lots about this period, right?). And I won an advanced reading copy. And it took me weeks and weeks to pull myself from things that were more immediately intriguing to me (Barbara Kingsolver, and a bunch of regencies...don't judge, now!) and start this. And...the first few pages I was all "oh, damn, it's going to be a bore and I have to read it, what was I thinking?"

And then I went deeper. And it turned into the sort of book I wake up in the middle of the night to continue, because it was so well written and so studded with little gems of (to me) new information and insights. Now, if I were as well versed in early US history as my partner I might not have been constantly going "really? wow." But I am not. So it was a great sticky fruitcake of a book, with all sorts of tender morsels to nibble and ponder.

Indeed, I was thinking this morning that many a sentence or paragraph could form the heart of an entire book. And I will be pondering a lot.

So thank you, Goodreads, and thank you John Ferling. Great book, great treat.