Take a photo of a barcode or cover
gbooks29 's review for:
Alexander Hamilton
by Ron Chernow
Thoughts on Alexander Hamilton before reading: He's totally a hardworking guy, I mean, 51 federalist essays, and he's very under appreciated in history. Though everyone says he is a monarchist, and was all for big government.
Thoughts on Alexander Hamilton after reading:
This guy was no procrastinator, and clearly had no free time, instead used it all to bash his enemies. Aside from being brilliant on the battlefield, in the court room, and in the cabinet, he was definitely a self made man who deserves more credit for the financial plan he created. However, he eventually steered to bad judgement, and also, the need to defend his reputation destroyed it. But overall, more admiration goes to him.
Personally, I don't think he and I would get along. He was very out there, intelligent, but had some very strong opinions.
What I liked about this biography, not just the detail in it that really brought this historical figure from the pages, and eventually to the stage, was making him human. Accounts of him vary. Either flourishing in his brilliance, or be grading his "aristocratic" ideas and dangerous behavior. Ron Chernow disputes these, the aristocrat stereotype being the main one. Like the other founding fathers, he was very intelligent and brilliant, one of the best of his age as a lawyer and as a soldier and statesmen, but he also was very impulsive and angry at times, and absentminded occasionally in his views of the people and contradicted himself a lot, too. Eliza Hamilton really deserves some praise, as she is first introduced in the prologue, and while she is often overshadowed in his biographies and much is unknown of her, her letters destroyed, she does so much for her husband, and is loyal to the end. But humanizing the founding fathers is needed, as sometimes our views of them portray a heroic person beyond or above humanity. My only critique of the book may be unintentional, just something I felt was missing, was George Washington during his own administration. He is there, but he isn't. His presence alone gives little on how he functions the country, rather the real truth that he relied on Hamilton a lot, though I felt he lost some character during this part of the book, as he seemed to just be a shadowy figure, sort of behind the sidelines as Jefferson and Hamilton quarrel. And I just thought Washington needed more prescribe towards the middle and end of the book.
However, the overall balance worked for me. Despite the admonishing of Jefferson, I still respected both men in the feud, as well as Madison and Adams, because of the fact that none of the book was intended to vilify those men, rather state Hamilton's view of them. My only change in thought was slight question in Jefferson, as it is implied that he almost never fired back to Hamilton's critiques, somewhat seeming higher ground, though instead he employs proxies to do his dirty work, which just rubbed me wrong. I understand Jefferson not getting into a feud with Hamilton in the newspaper, but it just seemed strange for Jefferson and his colleagues, to be the first ones to bash Hamilton based on his personal history, which Hamilton does as well, but the former did first, just made me question his own morals, though the confirmation that he did want to end the slave trade, is interesting to hear, with the stereotype that Jefferson was a full on slavemaster, is mostly true, he was never the whipping slavemaster we think of today, nor was Madison.
But focusing on the man and book himself, it is a well researched biography, a well detailed and balanced, though transitions being sort of out of place, and full story of the first treasury secretary who rose from poverty in Nevis to political prominence in New York.
Thoughts on Alexander Hamilton after reading:
This guy was no procrastinator, and clearly had no free time, instead used it all to bash his enemies. Aside from being brilliant on the battlefield, in the court room, and in the cabinet, he was definitely a self made man who deserves more credit for the financial plan he created. However, he eventually steered to bad judgement, and also, the need to defend his reputation destroyed it. But overall, more admiration goes to him.
Personally, I don't think he and I would get along. He was very out there, intelligent, but had some very strong opinions.
What I liked about this biography, not just the detail in it that really brought this historical figure from the pages, and eventually to the stage, was making him human. Accounts of him vary. Either flourishing in his brilliance, or be grading his "aristocratic" ideas and dangerous behavior. Ron Chernow disputes these, the aristocrat stereotype being the main one. Like the other founding fathers, he was very intelligent and brilliant, one of the best of his age as a lawyer and as a soldier and statesmen, but he also was very impulsive and angry at times, and absentminded occasionally in his views of the people and contradicted himself a lot, too. Eliza Hamilton really deserves some praise, as she is first introduced in the prologue, and while she is often overshadowed in his biographies and much is unknown of her, her letters destroyed, she does so much for her husband, and is loyal to the end. But humanizing the founding fathers is needed, as sometimes our views of them portray a heroic person beyond or above humanity. My only critique of the book may be unintentional, just something I felt was missing, was George Washington during his own administration. He is there, but he isn't. His presence alone gives little on how he functions the country, rather the real truth that he relied on Hamilton a lot, though I felt he lost some character during this part of the book, as he seemed to just be a shadowy figure, sort of behind the sidelines as Jefferson and Hamilton quarrel. And I just thought Washington needed more prescribe towards the middle and end of the book.
However, the overall balance worked for me. Despite the admonishing of Jefferson, I still respected both men in the feud, as well as Madison and Adams, because of the fact that none of the book was intended to vilify those men, rather state Hamilton's view of them. My only change in thought was slight question in Jefferson, as it is implied that he almost never fired back to Hamilton's critiques, somewhat seeming higher ground, though instead he employs proxies to do his dirty work, which just rubbed me wrong. I understand Jefferson not getting into a feud with Hamilton in the newspaper, but it just seemed strange for Jefferson and his colleagues, to be the first ones to bash Hamilton based on his personal history, which Hamilton does as well, but the former did first, just made me question his own morals, though the confirmation that he did want to end the slave trade, is interesting to hear, with the stereotype that Jefferson was a full on slavemaster, is mostly true, he was never the whipping slavemaster we think of today, nor was Madison.
But focusing on the man and book himself, it is a well researched biography, a well detailed and balanced, though transitions being sort of out of place, and full story of the first treasury secretary who rose from poverty in Nevis to political prominence in New York.