What do you think?
Rate this book
How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America
He's the subject of a hit Broadway musical, the face on the ten-dollar bill, and one of the most popular founding fathers. But what do you really know about Alexander Hamilton?
Hamilton was no American hero, says author Brion McClanahan. In fact, he spent his life working to make sure citizens and states could not hold the federal government accountable. His policies set a path for presidents to launch secret and illegal wars. And he wanted to make sure American citizens couldn?t do a thing to stop the government's overreach.
In How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America , Brion McClanahan examines the dangers of Hamilton's philosophy, introduces readers to heroes and enemies both new and familiar, and—most importantly—explains how we can put power back in the hands of the American people.
Hamilton was no American hero, says author Brion McClanahan. In fact, he spent his life working to make sure citizens and states could not hold the federal government accountable. His policies set a path for presidents to launch secret and illegal wars. And he wanted to make sure American citizens couldn?t do a thing to stop the government's overreach.
In How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America , Brion McClanahan examines the dangers of Hamilton's philosophy, introduces readers to heroes and enemies both new and familiar, and—most importantly—explains how we can put power back in the hands of the American people.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published September 18, 2017
42 people are currently reading
287 people want to read
About the author
Brion T. McClanahan
18 books94 followersBrion McClanahan received a B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He finished his Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, and had the privilege of being Clyde Wilson's last doctoral student. He is the author or co-author of four books, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, (Regnery, 2009), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes, (Regnery, 2012). He has written for TheDailyCaller.com, LewRockwell.com, TheTenthAmendmentCenter.com, Townhall.com, and HumanEvents.com. McClanahan is a faculty member at Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, has appeared on dozens of radio talk shows, and has spoken across the Southeast on the Founding Fathers and the founding principles of the United States. If you would like to book Dr. McClanahan for a speaking appearance, please send him an email with all pertinent information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
November 6, 2017
Turning conventional wisdom (AKA statism, nationalism, and a governmentcentric view of America) on its head, Dr. McClanahan is a welcomed breath of fresh air in the smog filled areana of political and historical parlance.
Hamilton was a “founding father” to be sure, but not one who supported the confederation of states of the American Revolution, or the Constitution as ratified by the sovereign states of the union.
He is, however, the founding father of crony capitalism, judicial overreach, and the consolidation of power such as we enjoy today in the “land of the free.”
McClanahan go through Hamilton’s schemes and duplicity in a way that is logical, easily understood, and comports with reason, the historical record, and common experience.
Hamilton was the gateway drug for Justices Story, Marshall, and Black, all of whom contributed directly to the nation in which we currently reside—a nation that rest on many things, none of which are legal, sane, or has anything to do with the consent of the governed.
This book is a fitting addendum to his 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America.
Time well spent... highly recommended!
Be one of the cool kids and read this book.
You’ll not get the straight dope on Hamilton in school.
It’s up to you to break out of the matrix of falsehood and duplicity, thanks in large part, to the schemings of Hamilton.
Was this review helpful to you?
Hamilton was a “founding father” to be sure, but not one who supported the confederation of states of the American Revolution, or the Constitution as ratified by the sovereign states of the union.
He is, however, the founding father of crony capitalism, judicial overreach, and the consolidation of power such as we enjoy today in the “land of the free.”
McClanahan go through Hamilton’s schemes and duplicity in a way that is logical, easily understood, and comports with reason, the historical record, and common experience.
Hamilton was the gateway drug for Justices Story, Marshall, and Black, all of whom contributed directly to the nation in which we currently reside—a nation that rest on many things, none of which are legal, sane, or has anything to do with the consent of the governed.
This book is a fitting addendum to his 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America.
Time well spent... highly recommended!
Be one of the cool kids and read this book.
You’ll not get the straight dope on Hamilton in school.
It’s up to you to break out of the matrix of falsehood and duplicity, thanks in large part, to the schemings of Hamilton.
Was this review helpful to you?
October 13, 2017
I am not a fan of politics because nothing resembles the history and Constitution I learned about in school. Voting feels like a useless endeavor when whoever is running will say one thing and do another once elected. Is this what the Founding Fathers expected?
Brion McClanahan explains what the original Constitution was and where it was railroaded completely off the tracks...from the beginning. He explains who thought what, said what and wrote what in order to develop a government that is hardly a shadow of what the Founders crafted.
I was surprised at how interesting the book is and that I read it from cover to cover. As I said, I don't care for politics but I try to read about it because I want to be knowledgable regarding it and I don't want to be ignorant at the ballot box.
Brion McClanahan explains what the original Constitution was and where it was railroaded completely off the tracks...from the beginning. He explains who thought what, said what and wrote what in order to develop a government that is hardly a shadow of what the Founders crafted.
I was surprised at how interesting the book is and that I read it from cover to cover. As I said, I don't care for politics but I try to read about it because I want to be knowledgable regarding it and I don't want to be ignorant at the ballot box.
November 12, 2018
In most cases, books on the founding fathers are packed with reverence and adulation. American historians generally find something uniquely admirable about their subject, going so far as to justify that individual’s political positions and philosophy. While value can be gleaned by some of these works, authors often fall short by acting as an apologist for their subject or by omitting important information. With the advent of a highly popular Broadway musical based on a founding father, it seems even more likely for popular historians to be prone to veneration.
Not so when it comes from the latest from Brion McClanahan, American historian and author of several prominent books. In his latest, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, McClanahan brings to light important but overlooked episodes in Hamilton’s life that are virtually never covered in academia, nurturing a fresh and new narrative about one of America’s most infamous founders. The result is a logical and unambiguous bludgeon to modern Hamiltonians.
Ironically enough, McClanahan starts his work by giving credit where he feels it is due to Hamilton. He recounts Hamilton’s classic American “rags to riches” story, where he rose from a poor bastard (literally) in the British West Indies to an American patriot fighting in the War of Independence. He goes as far as to compliment the man’s wit, guile, and perseverance. Even still, McClanahan makes a compelling case for Hamilton as the catalyst for most of the shortcomings in American government, then and now.
The single most significant – yet nearly unknown – topic addressed in this work illustrates Hamilton’s antithetical and inconsistent views on the United States Constitution between 1787 and 1791. On June 18 of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Hamilton infamously proposed a highly nationalistic form of government, where the executive was something of an elected monarch that served for life, where all of the states were essentially consolidated into one political unit, and where the executive appointed the Senators and state governors. Hamilton’s proposal was so unpopular in Philadelphia that it was practically ignored, and Hamilton himself admitted that the plan was “very remote” from the rest of the delegates.
However, at the Poughkeepsie convention in New York – which considered the Constitution independent of the other states – Hamilton had decided that the new framework was worth fighting for. On the convention floor, he promised that the primacy of the states was an essential feature of the new model:
“The state governments are essentially necessary to the form and spirit of the general system…While the constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, the states must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is wholly inadmissible.”
The “natural strength and resources of the state governments,” Hamilton said, would “give them an important supremacy over the general government.” Hamilton went as far as to explicitly declare, at various points, that the new general government could exercise only powers that were expressly delegated, and assured skeptical opponents that states remained supreme in their proper and retained sphere of power. He doubled down on this pledge by promising that laws contrary to the constitution, which did not meet the litmus test of enumeration, would be null and void.
McClanahan brilliantly recounts how Hamilton was caught off guard at Poughkeepsie by one of New York’s top enemies of the Constitution, John Lansing. Lansing warned the skeptical masses that Hamilton’s words seemed duplicitous, noting that he had favored a highly centralized, nationalist government in the Philadelphia Convention. By bringing attention to this important event – that receives almost no coverage in works about Hamilton – McClanahan shines a new light in an old attic, exposing Hamilton’s political deception in a way that has never been done before.
Shortly after being appointed to head the treasury department under George Washington, Hamilton engaged in devious political maneuvers that clearly violated both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. His first act of trickery came through his advocacy for the Funding Act of 1790, which allowed the general government to assume the outstanding state debts into a single national debt. McClanahan illustrates the controversy of this occasion by mentioning another circumstance that has rarely before been uncovered by historians – Hamilton knew this act was unconstitutional. During the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison and Hamilton even had a direct discussion on the subject. Both men – who were among the most ardent nationalists of the time – came to an agreement not to so much as make a proposal for a state debt assumption power, believing the idea to be too politically controversial. Even so, by 1790 Hamilton had completely reversed course.
After taking his first steps into constitutional abnegation, Hamilton took a full leap in 1791 when he pushed Congress to adopt the First National Bank of the United States. When pressed to produce a constitutional argument to support their contrary positions, Hamilton admitted that the Constitution did not grant such a power, but argued that the bank was authorized and justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This opinion became the foundation of the “implied powers doctrine,” the fallacious idea that the clause allowed for the execution of a vast reservoir of unlisted, unenumerated powers. Two years after the Constitution was ratified by the states, this was the first time such a notion had ever been articulated.
Outside of the debt assumption and national bank, McClanahan describes Hamilton’s unmistakable impact on the development of the executive office. This can be seen in the Neutrality Proclamation, the Jay Treaty, and the Whiskey Rebellion. Much to Thomas Jefferson’s chagrin, Hamilton always possessed the ear of Washington, who took his side on almost every political matter. This fact undoubtedly transformed the executive into a more powerful figure than the ratifying states had envisioned, leading to an even greater departure from the Constitution’s original intent.
By any estimation, Hamilton’s constitutional musings and economic outlook also negatively influenced those who would come after him. Fortunate as we are, McClanahan devotes much focus in the work to the destructive deeds of Hamilton’s political disciples. When the Federalists were removed from power through the Jeffersonian “Revolution of 1800,” Hamilton’s political vision seemed threatened by the new regime. However, John Adams was craftily able to nominate John Marshall, ardent Federalist and one of the most influential figures in the history of American government, to carry on the Hamiltonian banner.
Marshall did much to rubber-stamp Hamilton’s political outlook through seminal court cases, such as the 1819 case of McCulloch vs. Maryland, in which he argued that a Hamiltonian central bank was constitutional, that the Constitution was ratified by “one American people” in the aggregate rather than by the states, and that the Necessary and Proper Clause allowed for powers other than those “for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” as the Constitution clearly states. From cursory view of the historical record, these positions were entirely erroneous. But they were also Hamiltonian.
When Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833, he further codified and solidified the Hamiltonian constitutional vision. Just as Marshall had done in 1819, Story argued that it was the American people in the aggregate – not the states – that ratified the Constitution. By adopting such a view and improperly characterizing the history of ratification in such a way, Story undermined the essential importance of the states in the federal system. After the American electorate deliberately ejected the Federalists from power in elected positions, it was through Marshall and Story that Hamilton had his way nonetheless – through the federal courts.
McClanahan even delves into Hamilton’s influence during the last century, where the federal courts carved out a more powerful role for themselves through the incorporation doctrine – elevating them in stature and allowing them to “police” the states by striking down laws they don’t personally like. Former Chief Justice Hugo Black, for instance, did much to transform the federal judiciary – which was supposed to adjudicate only a small number of specified cases – into a national oligarchy whose edicts bind hundreds of people.
This expansion of federal power, even in the judiciary, has created a national, consolidated, centralized government where federalism – the chief hallmark of America’s constitutional system – has been all but vanquished. This was the very thing most of the founding generation feared the most – but it was actualized nevertheless under the inspiration of Hamilton’s governmental machinations. According to the author, Hamilton and his followers “did more damage to the American government than any other group in the history of the United States.” After reading this work, this contention is highly persuasive.
With Tom DiLorenzo’s excellent attack on Hamilton’s misdeeds, I thought every avenue of criticism against Hamilton had been exhausted. However, McClanahan’s work adds information not covered in that work, and sheds more light on Hamilton’s philosophical acolytes. For the first time ever, McClanahan exposes the sheer magnitude of negative influence that Hamilton had on American government in a single volume. Because of McClanahan’s seminal new work, even the pomp and pageantry of a recent Broadway musical cannot supplant the truth about Alexander Hamilton.
Not so when it comes from the latest from Brion McClanahan, American historian and author of several prominent books. In his latest, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America, McClanahan brings to light important but overlooked episodes in Hamilton’s life that are virtually never covered in academia, nurturing a fresh and new narrative about one of America’s most infamous founders. The result is a logical and unambiguous bludgeon to modern Hamiltonians.
Ironically enough, McClanahan starts his work by giving credit where he feels it is due to Hamilton. He recounts Hamilton’s classic American “rags to riches” story, where he rose from a poor bastard (literally) in the British West Indies to an American patriot fighting in the War of Independence. He goes as far as to compliment the man’s wit, guile, and perseverance. Even still, McClanahan makes a compelling case for Hamilton as the catalyst for most of the shortcomings in American government, then and now.
The single most significant – yet nearly unknown – topic addressed in this work illustrates Hamilton’s antithetical and inconsistent views on the United States Constitution between 1787 and 1791. On June 18 of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Hamilton infamously proposed a highly nationalistic form of government, where the executive was something of an elected monarch that served for life, where all of the states were essentially consolidated into one political unit, and where the executive appointed the Senators and state governors. Hamilton’s proposal was so unpopular in Philadelphia that it was practically ignored, and Hamilton himself admitted that the plan was “very remote” from the rest of the delegates.
However, at the Poughkeepsie convention in New York – which considered the Constitution independent of the other states – Hamilton had decided that the new framework was worth fighting for. On the convention floor, he promised that the primacy of the states was an essential feature of the new model:
“The state governments are essentially necessary to the form and spirit of the general system…While the constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, the states must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is wholly inadmissible.”
The “natural strength and resources of the state governments,” Hamilton said, would “give them an important supremacy over the general government.” Hamilton went as far as to explicitly declare, at various points, that the new general government could exercise only powers that were expressly delegated, and assured skeptical opponents that states remained supreme in their proper and retained sphere of power. He doubled down on this pledge by promising that laws contrary to the constitution, which did not meet the litmus test of enumeration, would be null and void.
McClanahan brilliantly recounts how Hamilton was caught off guard at Poughkeepsie by one of New York’s top enemies of the Constitution, John Lansing. Lansing warned the skeptical masses that Hamilton’s words seemed duplicitous, noting that he had favored a highly centralized, nationalist government in the Philadelphia Convention. By bringing attention to this important event – that receives almost no coverage in works about Hamilton – McClanahan shines a new light in an old attic, exposing Hamilton’s political deception in a way that has never been done before.
Shortly after being appointed to head the treasury department under George Washington, Hamilton engaged in devious political maneuvers that clearly violated both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. His first act of trickery came through his advocacy for the Funding Act of 1790, which allowed the general government to assume the outstanding state debts into a single national debt. McClanahan illustrates the controversy of this occasion by mentioning another circumstance that has rarely before been uncovered by historians – Hamilton knew this act was unconstitutional. During the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison and Hamilton even had a direct discussion on the subject. Both men – who were among the most ardent nationalists of the time – came to an agreement not to so much as make a proposal for a state debt assumption power, believing the idea to be too politically controversial. Even so, by 1790 Hamilton had completely reversed course.
After taking his first steps into constitutional abnegation, Hamilton took a full leap in 1791 when he pushed Congress to adopt the First National Bank of the United States. When pressed to produce a constitutional argument to support their contrary positions, Hamilton admitted that the Constitution did not grant such a power, but argued that the bank was authorized and justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This opinion became the foundation of the “implied powers doctrine,” the fallacious idea that the clause allowed for the execution of a vast reservoir of unlisted, unenumerated powers. Two years after the Constitution was ratified by the states, this was the first time such a notion had ever been articulated.
Outside of the debt assumption and national bank, McClanahan describes Hamilton’s unmistakable impact on the development of the executive office. This can be seen in the Neutrality Proclamation, the Jay Treaty, and the Whiskey Rebellion. Much to Thomas Jefferson’s chagrin, Hamilton always possessed the ear of Washington, who took his side on almost every political matter. This fact undoubtedly transformed the executive into a more powerful figure than the ratifying states had envisioned, leading to an even greater departure from the Constitution’s original intent.
By any estimation, Hamilton’s constitutional musings and economic outlook also negatively influenced those who would come after him. Fortunate as we are, McClanahan devotes much focus in the work to the destructive deeds of Hamilton’s political disciples. When the Federalists were removed from power through the Jeffersonian “Revolution of 1800,” Hamilton’s political vision seemed threatened by the new regime. However, John Adams was craftily able to nominate John Marshall, ardent Federalist and one of the most influential figures in the history of American government, to carry on the Hamiltonian banner.
Marshall did much to rubber-stamp Hamilton’s political outlook through seminal court cases, such as the 1819 case of McCulloch vs. Maryland, in which he argued that a Hamiltonian central bank was constitutional, that the Constitution was ratified by “one American people” in the aggregate rather than by the states, and that the Necessary and Proper Clause allowed for powers other than those “for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,” as the Constitution clearly states. From cursory view of the historical record, these positions were entirely erroneous. But they were also Hamiltonian.
When Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833, he further codified and solidified the Hamiltonian constitutional vision. Just as Marshall had done in 1819, Story argued that it was the American people in the aggregate – not the states – that ratified the Constitution. By adopting such a view and improperly characterizing the history of ratification in such a way, Story undermined the essential importance of the states in the federal system. After the American electorate deliberately ejected the Federalists from power in elected positions, it was through Marshall and Story that Hamilton had his way nonetheless – through the federal courts.
McClanahan even delves into Hamilton’s influence during the last century, where the federal courts carved out a more powerful role for themselves through the incorporation doctrine – elevating them in stature and allowing them to “police” the states by striking down laws they don’t personally like. Former Chief Justice Hugo Black, for instance, did much to transform the federal judiciary – which was supposed to adjudicate only a small number of specified cases – into a national oligarchy whose edicts bind hundreds of people.
This expansion of federal power, even in the judiciary, has created a national, consolidated, centralized government where federalism – the chief hallmark of America’s constitutional system – has been all but vanquished. This was the very thing most of the founding generation feared the most – but it was actualized nevertheless under the inspiration of Hamilton’s governmental machinations. According to the author, Hamilton and his followers “did more damage to the American government than any other group in the history of the United States.” After reading this work, this contention is highly persuasive.
With Tom DiLorenzo’s excellent attack on Hamilton’s misdeeds, I thought every avenue of criticism against Hamilton had been exhausted. However, McClanahan’s work adds information not covered in that work, and sheds more light on Hamilton’s philosophical acolytes. For the first time ever, McClanahan exposes the sheer magnitude of negative influence that Hamilton had on American government in a single volume. Because of McClanahan’s seminal new work, even the pomp and pageantry of a recent Broadway musical cannot supplant the truth about Alexander Hamilton.
January 15, 2020
This is a fantastic read, regardless of whether you agree with McLanahan’s positions on the issues. I found it to be a tour-de-force of the seminal cases in early US federalism as well as of the Supreme Court, specifically of the development of the federal judiciary as we know it today.
However, as is typical with the author, the book is noticeably tinged with undertones of the Calhoun/Neo-Confederate/Abbeville views of the Union, as though the matter is unequivocal and obvious, rather than open for debate. I think the book could do without the author’s interjection of his own biases on that subject, and would benefit from examining the other viewpoints that were held by others of the founding generation, rather than just acting as though Story and Webster merely invented their arguments.
In addition, though I don’t think that Hamilton’s constitutionalism was a good thing and tend to agree with the author that he had some indelible and detrimental impacts on our nation, (yes, I used the word “nation”, contrary to the author’s assertion that the Constitution doesn’t govern a nation) I don’t think it does justice to Hamilton completely. I think that for a good understanding and evaluation of Hamilton, one also ought to read Jay Cost’s “the Price of Greatness”.
For the most part though, I think the author does an impeccable job, and I think it is a great book for those who want an alternative viewpoint to the historically unanchored leftist jurisprudence of “living constitutionalism” and unquestioned supremacy of the Supreme Court. A skeptical reader can learn a lot from this book. Many authors inject their own views into books, but if that’s the worst part of the book, it still deserves an A rating.
However, as is typical with the author, the book is noticeably tinged with undertones of the Calhoun/Neo-Confederate/Abbeville views of the Union, as though the matter is unequivocal and obvious, rather than open for debate. I think the book could do without the author’s interjection of his own biases on that subject, and would benefit from examining the other viewpoints that were held by others of the founding generation, rather than just acting as though Story and Webster merely invented their arguments.
In addition, though I don’t think that Hamilton’s constitutionalism was a good thing and tend to agree with the author that he had some indelible and detrimental impacts on our nation, (yes, I used the word “nation”, contrary to the author’s assertion that the Constitution doesn’t govern a nation) I don’t think it does justice to Hamilton completely. I think that for a good understanding and evaluation of Hamilton, one also ought to read Jay Cost’s “the Price of Greatness”.
For the most part though, I think the author does an impeccable job, and I think it is a great book for those who want an alternative viewpoint to the historically unanchored leftist jurisprudence of “living constitutionalism” and unquestioned supremacy of the Supreme Court. A skeptical reader can learn a lot from this book. Many authors inject their own views into books, but if that’s the worst part of the book, it still deserves an A rating.
December 26, 2017
This should have been called "How the Supreme Court Screwed Up America". It does start off highlighting the lies, duplicity and fraud perpetrated by Hamilton, but this only takes up about 40% of the book. The balance focuses on the the Supreme Court especially under Marshall.
The book is well written and researched. McClanahan does have a tendency towards loaded language that leaves little doubt about his biases. This was blatant to one who largely agrees with his views. I don't know if this would be off-putting to some or a breath of fresh air compared to those who try to hide the biases they carry. I think he should have let the evidence he gathered speak to his own merits and kept the colored language to himself.
The book is well written and researched. McClanahan does have a tendency towards loaded language that leaves little doubt about his biases. This was blatant to one who largely agrees with his views. I don't know if this would be off-putting to some or a breath of fresh air compared to those who try to hide the biases they carry. I think he should have let the evidence he gathered speak to his own merits and kept the colored language to himself.
February 6, 2019
For a book about how Alexander Hamilton “ruined this country”, there’s really not a lot about Alexander Hamilton. I tried to keep an open mind because clearly this is geared towards a certain audience, but there were such grains to pick through and a hyper-focus on micro-details... it’s just kind of silly, to be honest.
Yeah, he wasn’t perfect, but I’d challenge you to find a founding father who was. Besides what this narrative was written for, not too many Federalist policies apply today... which is probably why a lot of the content didn’t seem super relevant / a bit of a stretch.
Yeah, he wasn’t perfect, but I’d challenge you to find a founding father who was. Besides what this narrative was written for, not too many Federalist policies apply today... which is probably why a lot of the content didn’t seem super relevant / a bit of a stretch.
Read
June 1, 2019ok so i didn't actually finish it cause it was an adult book and it was boring but the first three pages were good
April 25, 2025
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton is the titular villain of McClanahan’s constitutional history, but he is simply the first of four men the author identifies as having subverted the principles of the Constitution to form the Federal government into their vision of a nationalist organization. McClanahan is an excellent Constitutional scholar. He dives deeply into the literature and correspondence surrounding the Constitutional Convention of 1787, as well as that of the subsequent decades. The other primary culprits he implicates are former Supreme Court justices John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black.
The primary argument expounded by McClanahan is that the Constitution was founded as a safeguard against the encroachment of Federal authority on the sovereignty of the various state governments. This is a complex legal history, but McClanahan acquits himself well in making his case. I largely have come to a similar conclusion as the author, in finding that the state governments have been neutered over the years since the ratification of the Constitution in favor of a “unified” code of law. The structure of the Federal government under the Constitution was never intended to operate in the manner it now does, and has primarily done so for the past hundred years.
My only major concerns with McClanahan are regarding his treatment of James Madison and his stance on the importance of the Bill of Rights. Madison was the chief architect that nearly single-handedly wrote the Constitution. While he did make some conflicting comments over the years, his opinion must always be given primacy over any other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. McClanahan seems to at times pick and choose when he trusts Madison’s legal opinions. While he also argues persuasively that the Bill of Rights was written specifically for protection of citizens under Federal law, he veers into a gray area, seemingly arguing that the Bill of Rights offers no protection against state laws, that do not violate articles of the Constitution. There are elements of truth to that, but with varying shades of gray. Unfortunately, even the delegates from the Constitutional Convention that approved the final draft often found themselves at odds with one another in the 2-3 decades afterward as to what was originally intended.
Overall, this is a great work that I can highly recommend for historical value. Even if one finds that they wholly ascribe to a Hamiltonian view of American government, anyone can find interesting American legal and Constitutional history to learn from here.
The primary argument expounded by McClanahan is that the Constitution was founded as a safeguard against the encroachment of Federal authority on the sovereignty of the various state governments. This is a complex legal history, but McClanahan acquits himself well in making his case. I largely have come to a similar conclusion as the author, in finding that the state governments have been neutered over the years since the ratification of the Constitution in favor of a “unified” code of law. The structure of the Federal government under the Constitution was never intended to operate in the manner it now does, and has primarily done so for the past hundred years.
My only major concerns with McClanahan are regarding his treatment of James Madison and his stance on the importance of the Bill of Rights. Madison was the chief architect that nearly single-handedly wrote the Constitution. While he did make some conflicting comments over the years, his opinion must always be given primacy over any other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. McClanahan seems to at times pick and choose when he trusts Madison’s legal opinions. While he also argues persuasively that the Bill of Rights was written specifically for protection of citizens under Federal law, he veers into a gray area, seemingly arguing that the Bill of Rights offers no protection against state laws, that do not violate articles of the Constitution. There are elements of truth to that, but with varying shades of gray. Unfortunately, even the delegates from the Constitutional Convention that approved the final draft often found themselves at odds with one another in the 2-3 decades afterward as to what was originally intended.
Overall, this is a great work that I can highly recommend for historical value. Even if one finds that they wholly ascribe to a Hamiltonian view of American government, anyone can find interesting American legal and Constitutional history to learn from here.
August 25, 2019
Hamilton, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, are usually portrayed as flawless individuals who thought along the same paths but this is far from the truth. They had flaws and even outside of the well documented Jefferson/Hamilton differences, they also had different ideas and beliefs on how to move the new country forward.
Hamilton, of late, has been put upon a pedestal as the best of the best, this book delves into some of his thoughts on the ruling of the country. How he was at odds with other Founding Fathers, how he constantly pushed for a strong General (Federal) Government and how he waffled back and forth for convenience to what he wanted at the time.
Examined in the book are Hamilton's ways, his speeches, his words, his deeds. And weighed not only against other Founding Fathers he was at odds with but also against his own words previously and subsequently. May well known names and their ideas are in the book as well, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, McClay, Franklin, Adams etc.
Hamilton used the argument of a small General Government and states rights to help ratify the Constitution and once ratified he set about against many of his peers pushing for a strong General Government and limiting states rights. He pushed for assumption of the states war debts, he basically made up with now accepted practice of Judicial Review which Madison and Jefferson both argued vehemently against. He helped raise an army against the countries own citizens and took charge as he rode to squash the Whiskey Rebellion. He felt the General Government should be supreme and no state should be allowed to debate it, legally or not.
For good or bad Hamilton had an ally in Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in trying to expand Federal power in direct opposition to the ideals of the Constitution. If this ruined America or not is still a matter of debate but there is no doubt that Hamilton was the architect of the idea and the implementation. The general government was created for a very specific purpose: commerce & defense. While every other issue was to be dealt with at a state by state basis. The Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast have never seen eye to eye on political, cultural, or social issues. The original creation of the union was intended to maintain these differences while offering defense and free trade among the different states.
This is a good counter balance book Chernow's biography which started the recent Hamilton craze.
Hamilton, of late, has been put upon a pedestal as the best of the best, this book delves into some of his thoughts on the ruling of the country. How he was at odds with other Founding Fathers, how he constantly pushed for a strong General (Federal) Government and how he waffled back and forth for convenience to what he wanted at the time.
Examined in the book are Hamilton's ways, his speeches, his words, his deeds. And weighed not only against other Founding Fathers he was at odds with but also against his own words previously and subsequently. May well known names and their ideas are in the book as well, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, McClay, Franklin, Adams etc.
Hamilton used the argument of a small General Government and states rights to help ratify the Constitution and once ratified he set about against many of his peers pushing for a strong General Government and limiting states rights. He pushed for assumption of the states war debts, he basically made up with now accepted practice of Judicial Review which Madison and Jefferson both argued vehemently against. He helped raise an army against the countries own citizens and took charge as he rode to squash the Whiskey Rebellion. He felt the General Government should be supreme and no state should be allowed to debate it, legally or not.
For good or bad Hamilton had an ally in Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in trying to expand Federal power in direct opposition to the ideals of the Constitution. If this ruined America or not is still a matter of debate but there is no doubt that Hamilton was the architect of the idea and the implementation. The general government was created for a very specific purpose: commerce & defense. While every other issue was to be dealt with at a state by state basis. The Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast have never seen eye to eye on political, cultural, or social issues. The original creation of the union was intended to maintain these differences while offering defense and free trade among the different states.
This is a good counter balance book Chernow's biography which started the recent Hamilton craze.
October 16, 2017
Simply excellent!
McClanahan shows how foolish it is that a majority of Americans expect every single issue to be solved on a nation-wide level. Not only that, McClanahan shows that this was never (EVER!) the intent of the general government.
Rather, the general government was created for a very specific purpose: commerce & defense. While every other issue was to be dealt with at a state by state basis. This view runs straight in the face of the nationalist myth which was the brain child of Alexander Hamilton and the life's work of the Supreme Court judges who codified that Hamiltonian vision of an American nation (John Marshall, Joseph Story, & Hugo Black).
The Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast have never seen eye to eye on political, cultural, or social issues. AND THAT'S OKAY! The original creation of the union was intended to maintain these differences while offering defense and free trade among the VERY different several states.
This is a great book that really does show just how wrong we've gotten American history, especially American legal history!
McClanahan shows how foolish it is that a majority of Americans expect every single issue to be solved on a nation-wide level. Not only that, McClanahan shows that this was never (EVER!) the intent of the general government.
Rather, the general government was created for a very specific purpose: commerce & defense. While every other issue was to be dealt with at a state by state basis. This view runs straight in the face of the nationalist myth which was the brain child of Alexander Hamilton and the life's work of the Supreme Court judges who codified that Hamiltonian vision of an American nation (John Marshall, Joseph Story, & Hugo Black).
The Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast have never seen eye to eye on political, cultural, or social issues. AND THAT'S OKAY! The original creation of the union was intended to maintain these differences while offering defense and free trade among the VERY different several states.
This is a great book that really does show just how wrong we've gotten American history, especially American legal history!
June 24, 2018
This was a horrible read by a typical Fox News hatchet writer.
December 22, 2018
I had very low expectations at the beginning of this book as the author wears his extremely conservative views on his sleeve, but even though I disagree with McClanahan politically, I found this a useful book.
It's not really a book about Hamilton, but more a book about the conflict between states rights (the Jeffersonian view that McClanahan favors) and American nationalism (the Hamiltonian view that the US is a nation rather than a federation of sovereign states.
The first third of the book looks at Hamilton's own career, while the rest of the book looks at nationalist/Hamiltonian Supreme Court Justices John Marshall, Joseph Story and, jumping forward a century, Hugo Black. I knew almost nothing about the latter two before reading this book, and though the author doesn't hide his disdain, he uses enough quotations and primary sources to allow the reader to make up their own mind.
The number of Americans who would go along with McClanahan's states rights views, where the federal government has almost no power over individual states, is probably limited to the absolute fringe, but the argument about state sovereignty is freshly relevant in a mid-Brexit Europe.
While McClanahan might be right that the US constitution as ratified did not support the Hamiltonian, nationalist view, I think Hamilton was probably right in arguing that a loosely tied union of sovereign states would have split up at some point and that the liberty and prosperity of most Americans owes a great deal to the nationalist tradition. Similarly, the EU is the greatest guarantor of freedom and prosperity for individual Europeans, even though the loss of national sovereignty is often a bitter pill.
It's not really a book about Hamilton, but more a book about the conflict between states rights (the Jeffersonian view that McClanahan favors) and American nationalism (the Hamiltonian view that the US is a nation rather than a federation of sovereign states.
The first third of the book looks at Hamilton's own career, while the rest of the book looks at nationalist/Hamiltonian Supreme Court Justices John Marshall, Joseph Story and, jumping forward a century, Hugo Black. I knew almost nothing about the latter two before reading this book, and though the author doesn't hide his disdain, he uses enough quotations and primary sources to allow the reader to make up their own mind.
The number of Americans who would go along with McClanahan's states rights views, where the federal government has almost no power over individual states, is probably limited to the absolute fringe, but the argument about state sovereignty is freshly relevant in a mid-Brexit Europe.
While McClanahan might be right that the US constitution as ratified did not support the Hamiltonian, nationalist view, I think Hamilton was probably right in arguing that a loosely tied union of sovereign states would have split up at some point and that the liberty and prosperity of most Americans owes a great deal to the nationalist tradition. Similarly, the EU is the greatest guarantor of freedom and prosperity for individual Europeans, even though the loss of national sovereignty is often a bitter pill.
January 17, 2019
You will LOVE this book if you believe the Constitution of the United States should be taken literally as written, that the States should always have been left to make decisions on public education, religious freedom, racism, etc on their own, and that people like Justice Hugo Black ruined our Government with their interpretations of Constitutional law.
It is very will written. It presumably withstands academic rigor. But it starts out with a whiny battle-cry about how Hamilton, now a darling of progressives because of the play, needs to be taken down a (god-damn) peg! He is not the progressive that brown skinned and like minded progressives make him out to be. So here is our well researched book on why he screwed up America with his ideas of Nationalism, and how others of his bent like Justice Black, made things even worse.
I am too dumb and simpleminded to tell you if the author’s arguments stand up to debate. Are there Hamiltonian's out there that can punch cannonball sized holes into his arguments? I certainly cannot, but in the interest of reading and understanding both sides, I took this book on. Glad I did, as I learned a lot. But like any work with political bents, the reader needs to at least know what those bents are so that they can avoid any confirmation biases, etc.
I plan on reading the big Hamilton book next, and will probably see the play soon. Read this book if you are interested in another perspective on Hamilton. It was not a waste of time, but I wish I had more context upon which to measure the arguments against.
It is very will written. It presumably withstands academic rigor. But it starts out with a whiny battle-cry about how Hamilton, now a darling of progressives because of the play, needs to be taken down a (god-damn) peg! He is not the progressive that brown skinned and like minded progressives make him out to be. So here is our well researched book on why he screwed up America with his ideas of Nationalism, and how others of his bent like Justice Black, made things even worse.
I am too dumb and simpleminded to tell you if the author’s arguments stand up to debate. Are there Hamiltonian's out there that can punch cannonball sized holes into his arguments? I certainly cannot, but in the interest of reading and understanding both sides, I took this book on. Glad I did, as I learned a lot. But like any work with political bents, the reader needs to at least know what those bents are so that they can avoid any confirmation biases, etc.
I plan on reading the big Hamilton book next, and will probably see the play soon. Read this book if you are interested in another perspective on Hamilton. It was not a waste of time, but I wish I had more context upon which to measure the arguments against.
August 4, 2019
Compelling case for decentralized US federalism
The author tells the story of the evolution of the nationalist legal doctrine in the US. That is, how the states eventually became subordinates to the US Constitution.
We see how the nationalist vision began in the pre-Constitution debates and carried forward for two more centuries. Hamilton is the original villain, although the author is a little short on examples and it feels that he is reaching at times. Also, Washington clearly sides with Hamilton in many cases and seems to avoid the author’s blame. Why?
The next villains are justices Marshall and Story and the author does an excellent job showing their misinterpretation of the Constitution.
The saga reaches its conclusion in 1940s era when justice Black completes the nationalist transformation and establishes the states as clearly subordinate to the US Constitution.
Overall, a very interesting read and enlightening exposé on how the original vision for a decentralized federal system in the US was gradually corrupted.
The author tells the story of the evolution of the nationalist legal doctrine in the US. That is, how the states eventually became subordinates to the US Constitution.
We see how the nationalist vision began in the pre-Constitution debates and carried forward for two more centuries. Hamilton is the original villain, although the author is a little short on examples and it feels that he is reaching at times. Also, Washington clearly sides with Hamilton in many cases and seems to avoid the author’s blame. Why?
The next villains are justices Marshall and Story and the author does an excellent job showing their misinterpretation of the Constitution.
The saga reaches its conclusion in 1940s era when justice Black completes the nationalist transformation and establishes the states as clearly subordinate to the US Constitution.
Overall, a very interesting read and enlightening exposé on how the original vision for a decentralized federal system in the US was gradually corrupted.
October 30, 2017
This book is incredibly interesting. Most of the broad brushstrokes I already knew - how Hamilton was duplicitous throughout the pre and post Constitution period, how he had wanted what was effectively an elected monarchy with a largely unaccountable executive and, after being rejected during the Constitutional Convention, worked to create such as the first Treasury Secretary under the new Constitution - but this book goes into detail, leveraging debate notes and correspondence that I was previous unaware of.
It delves into details of events that previous I only knew the broad brush stroke of; or, in some cases, wasn't aware of at all.
I've read or listened to (audiobooks for the win!) several biographies of several founders ( I like to binge 2-3 different biographies for a given founder in order to get a multidimensional perspective). Nonetheless, I've still learned a lot from this book.
It delves into details of events that previous I only knew the broad brush stroke of; or, in some cases, wasn't aware of at all.
I've read or listened to (audiobooks for the win!) several biographies of several founders ( I like to binge 2-3 different biographies for a given founder in order to get a multidimensional perspective). Nonetheless, I've still learned a lot from this book.
August 24, 2018
This book is a rather interesting one. The way you view this book will be completely determined by the way you view nationalism in the US. If you are a nationalist and believe we are a united people of America then this book give the historical timeline of events that made America the nationalist nation it is today. If you believe in smaller government and that America is a collection of separate states as opposed to a united group of people then this book explains how Alexander Hamilton and future generations screwed up America. As someone who sees people in America as Americans and not individuals from a given state, this book outlines how a shrewd politician used his intellect to push an agenda of nationalism which had lead to the securing of federal laws that protect human right and others at a level above the States. As I view it this book should be entitled "How Alexander Hamilton Helped Save America"
February 12, 2018
This is a must read! Excellent book on how the sovereignty of the States (and the People) were hijacked by the Supreme Court.
February 27, 2018
it was a good read. definitely, change my perspective in Hamilton.
September 5, 2020
A lot of interesting information, but the writing is very helter-skelter, which is why it took me so long to get through.
August 10, 2022
Alexander Hamilton is hailed as a hero in a recent hip hop musical. This book evaluates Hamilton and his ideological successors and lays out what his ideas have done to millions of people.
January 20, 2024
Extremely informative, but also fairly boring, makes a good case for it's claims, also makes it easier to fall asleep.
June 3, 2018
Wouldn't the world be a better place if there was no USA but instead a kind of Eurozone for North America?
Well, maybe actually - but certainly not if we got what this asshole wants, and certainly not if we move that way today. We'd still have chattel slavery, and you'd be making 20 cents an hour. The fact the rest of the world might have been better off without the US is a different topic entirely- and, frankly, either the UK or Germany would have probably ended up in the same position as the US is today, genocide against brown people and all.
There are actually some interesting historical questions in this book (that is, the history is atypical in focus and accurate, so far as I know anyway), but this book is not a work of history - it's a work of evangelism, and fuck that noise.
For the record, I don't like Hamilton either - but I hate almost every major figure in history for being murdering, corrupt, rapacious, racist, and/or genocidal dickwads. You don't become a major historical figure without a body count.
Well, maybe actually - but certainly not if we got what this asshole wants, and certainly not if we move that way today. We'd still have chattel slavery, and you'd be making 20 cents an hour. The fact the rest of the world might have been better off without the US is a different topic entirely- and, frankly, either the UK or Germany would have probably ended up in the same position as the US is today, genocide against brown people and all.
There are actually some interesting historical questions in this book (that is, the history is atypical in focus and accurate, so far as I know anyway), but this book is not a work of history - it's a work of evangelism, and fuck that noise.
For the record, I don't like Hamilton either - but I hate almost every major figure in history for being murdering, corrupt, rapacious, racist, and/or genocidal dickwads. You don't become a major historical figure without a body count.
March 3, 2025
This novel reveals the man behind the ten-dollar bill through his push for policy in his writing, and thus the mark he left on the American we know today. Hamilton embodies the definition of a politician, a man who spoke out of both sides of his mouth and doubled back on his promises. Even after his death, the works of Story, Black, and others pushed the Hamiltonian agenda.
Overall, the novel has an intriguing opening and a very compelling story about Hamilton. That's right, Hamilton. I cared little for Story and Black when the title of the novel is so indicatively aimed towards Hamilton's faults. It could be argued that it is still relevant, but I found it excessive and could have been presented better. While reading, there are also spots where the narrative drags, which makes it hard to digest the information being brought forward.
I initially went into this novel with high expectations, and I think the beginning achieved and exceeded them. I can't but help feel that this book could have been more. But sadly, the final product did not perform.
July 2, 2020
This book makes clear that the States were on a conveyor belt to central government bondage from the day the Constitution was ratified.
December 21, 2025
listened on audible. interesting things to think about.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews