What a modern occurrence: a young man works only enough to get by, seduces every lovely young thing he can, spends himself into bankruptcy, and abuses his professional position, all the while wondering with complete innocence why the world isn't beating a path to his door. But Rosner's book isn't a comedy of 20th-century errors; it's the tale of a Regency-era stud who badly needed to be disabused of his notions. Fear not. He never was. Each few pages brings some fresh misadventure, in which the good doctor thinks he's found the perfect source of free money or true love, while you, the reader, are already squirming in anticipation of disaster. Here's a taste: Lesassier's specialty is obstetrics, at which he actually was quite competent. However, there was that little problem with him seducing his patients. This book does take a certain amount of attention to read. Published for the academic community, it's page after page of small print and few illustrations. It's well worth the effort.

This is a remarkably engaging tale based on the in-depth study of an 18th century physician's voluminous diary. In this actual history that reads like a page-turning novel, Rosner brings to life an ambitious, social climbing man from his youth and his training through a career marked by multiple scandals. A reader is forced to wonder how much the world of the protagonist's sexual pecadillos and ambitious exploitative manipulations are reflected behind the scenes in today's medical world. The author has turned scrupulous historical scholarship into a fully engrossing read.

Flexner vividly recounts Hamiltons life and career through age 26. This reads like Dickens writing history - from Hamilton's miserable, impoverished home life until age 10, his teenage life in his adopted country, (America), his career in the Continental Army, his love for Elizabeth Schuyler.

Flexner Brings the young Hamilton to life through his letters and actions in the revolution. This book has a vividness that is remarkable. The famous and not so famous participants in the story come to life also - George Washington, The Marquis de Lafayette, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, etc.

This book has been criticized for being overly "psycological". This aspect is not over done. Simply put, this is a great story - well told, well researched. Highly recommended.

In the bibliography of this book Mr. Flexner wrote that he felt that the real Hamilton had become obscured through the years through the writings of people who were either too fawning or too critical, depending on their political biases. Mr. Flexner therefore tried to get back to original sources as much as possible. Reading quotations from Hamilton's correspondence is one of the great pleasures of this book. But there are many things that make this book special. The author has a smooth, easy-to-read style. I have read elsewhere, in connection with one of Mr. Flexner's volumes on George Washington, someone complaining that the style is stilted or "old-fashioned." I heartily disagree with that criticism. Mr. Flexner was born in 1908 and this book was first published when the author was 70, but there is nothing "old-fashioned" about the prose. The style is actually quite modern. Another thing I enjoyed about the book was that the author went into the psychiatric reasons for Hamilton's sometimes aggressive and impulsive behavior, but he did so in a reasonable manner. You didn't feel as though you were being bludgeoned with analytical arguments but Mr. Flexner "gently" gave some commonsense and logical reasons for why Hamilton behaved the way he did e.g.-the stigma of his illegitimate birth, his mother's irresponsible behavior, being brought up in the West Indies and being left to basically fend for himself at an early age, etc.

I also enjoyed the way Mr. Flexner concentrated on Hamilton's service as aide-de-camp to George Washington during the Revolutionary War. There is a lot of interesting military history here, dealing with the battles fought on Long Island and in Trenton and Princeton and Monmouth, as well as Yorktown. There are wonderful gems of information, such as Washington's propensity to lose his temper amongst his close aides, when he wasn't on "public view" and felt that he could "let his hair down" a bit. Other interesting scenes include: at the Battle of Princeton where a patriot cannonball went through the window of Princeton college and slammed into a portrait of George II that was hanging on the wall, "decapitating" the king. (The patriots took the portrait down and "repaired" it by having an artist paint a scene with George Washington in it!); The Battle of Trenton, where the patriot army celebrated by drinking up the liquor the Hessians had left behind. Washington wanted to pursue the Hessians but was forced to give up on the idea as his men were in no shape to do anymore fighting!; Finally, in the section dealing with the Battle of Yorktown, Mr. Flexner mentions that shortly before the battle word had spread that a British force, led by Benedict Arnold no less, had been so upset by the strong resistance they had encountered in trying to take a fortress in New London, Connecticut, that the British had executed the men who had wanted to surrender to them when the fighting was over. The patriot army at Yorktown wanted to get revenge on the British and Washington had to give a speech before the battle that he basically didn't want his men to "lower themselves" to that level. If British troops wanted to surrender the surrender should be accepted and they should be taken prisoner. The troops did obey Washington's directive...

On a final note, I felt Mr. Flexner was very fair in this book. The author looked at Hamilton from all angles and praised the good things about him- his intelligence and hard work and sincere interest in doing what he felt was good for the future of the country- but also criticized his sometimes rash and impulsive behavior, and the author didn't gloss over Hamilton's general disdain for humanity!

This was a really excellent book and well-worth your time.

This book documents the friendship and political careers of two of the Confederacy's most important statesmen. Davis does a nice job of providing historical detail while also weaving a readable story. However, at times, the prose is too informal and almost needlessly dramatic. Moreover, much of the history is quite derivative, as I learned very little new information about the men in question or the political tenets of the Confederacy. His previous book, "A Government of Our Own," is a much better historical treatment.

Toombs and Stephen examplify the problems within the Confederate
government. These incredibly close friends of the strong Georgia delegation were powerful national political figures whose bitterness over personal issues, Toombs, and Stephens' strict constitutional views undermined the Davis administration. Stephens never seriously worked with the dominating Davis and was later opposed to the administration over constitutional issues in the face of bigger war emergencies. Toombs loses the opportunity to become the first President by his bellicose enthusiams for the office coupled with drink which lowers his place in the new government and raises Stephens' star. Excellent description of both men including Toombs rise as Secretary of State, his anti-Davis stance and his mercurial and short military career. The author also covers the end of the era of both men including Stephens' attempts to rewite history in a light more favorable to him then his actions were in reality. These two powerful men and closest of friends could not see the big picture of the war seeking their narrow views in spite of the war effort. Together with Governor Brown of Georgia, they represented a crisis of independence within the Confederacy that no doubt contributed to the fall of the Confederate government.

What a delightful little book! And frankly, I don't often use the term "delightful" in a book review. *The Union That Shaped the Confederacy* is a swiftly-paced, lightly written work that details the friendship of a pair of Georgians - Robert Toombs and "Little Alec," Alexander Stephens.

It is very important to know exactly what you are not getting with this book. You will not get a standard biographical treatment of Stephens and Toombs, and author Davis makes this abundantly clear from the outset. You will not receive great insights into the minds and thinking of these two men, but will come to appreciate the antebellum, war-time, and post-bellum periods of American history as these two men saw it.

William C. Davis does not attempt to make his subjects either heroes or villains on the Confederacy's stage. They were what they were - friends who for the most part held similar political beliefs, worked for the same ends, and became, as the war progressed, more and more bitterly opposed to the administration of Jefferson F. Davis.

Because of the nature of the work, the reader receives a slice of Civil War-era history from a perspective he or she would not likely get. Along the way, one receives insights into the functioning (and dysfunction) of the Confederacy's Executive Branch, as well as the building of the "loyal opposition" to Davis's administration. We see the strengths and weaknesses of these two prominent Georgians, as they struggled to establish a new nation out of the old.

Davis's writing style is loose and fast, and almost reads as if a good friend is telling a story of another pair of friends. To some, this may be distracting, but I found it to be just part of the story. *The Union That Shaped the Confederacy* can be read quickly, with a great sense of satisfaction. This book comes highly recommended.

Duel exposes and explores many more topics than just the ill fated 1804 meeting between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr at Weehawkin. The political atmosphere of the time pervades this book and gives the reader a good understanding of the differences between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's and Burr's Republicans and the disputes that arose as a result. Jefferson plays a large part in Fleming's history and is a central character in the feud between our two antagonists.

This book also offers insight into the history of New York City at the end of the eighteenth century.

Duel is an excellent read and I recommend it with one caveat. . . If you are a loyal Hamilton supporter, you will be disappointed by Fleming's depiction of this great American.

Thomas Fleming's "Duel" paints history with broad, vivid, and colorful strokes and gives to the history a certain drama and interaction that makes it an engaging product to the reader.

However, the reader should be forewarned that the account given to the times of Hamilton and Burr is not (always) balanced. Fleming's open and articulated biases make it hard for the reader to accept "Duel" as an "objective" piece of history.

With that said, there are some real gems to be found in this book. Fleming's account of the genesis and execution of the Sedition Act is incredible. Also of great worth was Fleming's account of Hamilton's libel appeal before New York State's highest court. Until that time, TRUTH could not be asserted as a defense in a libel prosecution. Fleming illuminates this with great detail.

Many reviewers find sympathy with Aaron Burr, who has commonly been portrayed as a villain. Fleming does a lot of heavy lifting to rehabilitating Burr's historical character, but Fleming also leaves some of Burr's deceit intact (Burr's dreams of ruling a Western Empire).

What I find curious is that many reviewers felt little sympathy for Alexander Hamilton. While it is true that Fleming's account does portray Hamilton as a washed-up Federalist, it is important to note that (generally) ANY Federalist after 1800 was a washed-up Federalist. The Federalist fall after 1800 was sudden and complete. Fleming portrays Hamilton as having many admirable qualities (i.e. intelligence, diligence, a desire to re-invent himself - at least religiously, etc.)

The real villainry in Fleming's work is reserved for Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is the mythical "Founding Father" that takes the hardest (deserved?) fall.

All in all, "Duel" is an engaging read and highly recommended - even with its apparent drawbacks.

Thomas Fleming has written a great piece of history than reads almost like a novel. Burr and Hamilton come alive with all of their virtues and their many faults. One of my favorite ancedotes is Fleming's account of how during the revolution, when Martha Washington named the tomcat she kept "Hamilton," after her husband's military aide, because of the cat's amorous ways. The biggest surprise in the book is the recounting of the large contributions Burr made to an idependent judicary by thwarting Jefferson's attempt to have Justice Samuel Chase impeached. This occurred AFTER Burr killed Hamilton. "Duel" stands with Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" as one of the best American History books of the last five years.

Just two years ago, John Steele Gordon's book on the history of the U.S. federal debt would have seemed dated, even though it was published in 1997. After more than twenty consecutive years of operating in the red, the U.S. federal government had not only erased its annual deficits and began paying down the debt, but surpluses were projected over the next ten years.

This is no longer the case. A tax cut, the war on terrorism, and a slowdown in the economy have combined to push the U.S. government's outlays above its revenues. They have also made this book -- "Hamilton's Blessing" -- relevant again.

Gordon's book is two things: 1) a basic history describing the twists and turns of U.S. fiscal policy over the last two hundred-plus years and 2) a political tract condemning the latest turn U.S. fiscal policy has taken since the Great Society.

By combining the two, Gordon seeks to show that the most recent practice of U.S. fiscal policy -- that of habitually running deficits in peacetime -- is not only unprecedented in U.S. history, but also, more importantly, unsupported by any sound theory of economics.

"Hamilton's Blessing" is well-written and interesting. The book is only slightly marred by a lack of detail in some areas. How exactly does a large public debt hurt your average citizen and by how much? We never find out.

Gordon also should have kept his own political bent out of the book. Among other things, he spends three pages in a less than 200-page book detailing Jack Kemp's personal and political history, including his football career. All very interesting, but not really relevant to the history of the U.S. debt.

This book is detailed, but easy to read, giving a good background on how our national debt came to be what it is today. Teh book also covers several of the more popular schools of thought on economics, specifically the teachings of John Maynard Keynes, the namesake of Keynesian Economics. I recommend this book to anyone who has ever questioned our government's inability to pay down the national debt as that debt is known as "Hamilton's Blessing."

This book starts out very good with an insightful depiction of Hamilton's initial achievement, but gets progressively weaker as it advances into the present, as the author begins to lose interest in the historical importance of the debt and concentrates more on his polemic against the tax system. While he makes some very valid points about the Byzantine complexity of the revenue code, to me he did not draw a clear enough connection between this and the central topic. Although Gordon shows that the current debt is very different in origin from obligations of the past, his depiction of the events since World War II is altogether too skimpy. He also does not do enough to distinguish between the so-called "publicly held debt" and the debt held by other government accounts (such as Social Security), a relatively new cleavage with highly significant ramifications for fiscal policy. Finally, and this is certainly not the author's fault, the book has become just a bit dated with the projection of large surpluses and the current debate over their best use--perhaps a new edition is forthcoming. All in all, Hamilton's blessing will provide useful insights for those interested in fiscal policy, but the book could have been much better than it is.

This is a concise and easily accessible introduction to early Islamic political history. While not the most nuanced or up-to-date work, it's a good general survey for the layperson. It may serve as a springboard for more complex and in-depth works. I must say, however, that the title is unfortunate.

This survey is a model of fine scholarship and brevity. In less than 200 pages Gibb provides an appreciation of Islam and describes the major sects and movements.

The survey suffers only from its age (otherwise 5 stars). It was written in 1947 and revised a few times, lastly in 1970. The author died shortly thereafter. Some terms are outdated, not the least of which is the title "Mohammedanism". Some Muslims may regard the title offensive since it implies primacy of Mohammed rather than God. Gibb is aware of this and speaks to it. Perhaps owing to the less charged environment of his day he stuck with this western term on the basis that some muslim sects described themselves as followers of Mohammed.

Today's reader should not infer from the title that the book is an oafish, chauvinistic view. Gibb communicates the compelling message of early Islam and illuminates the remarkable development of Islamic law and culture. The Shi'ia split and Sufism are explained in clear but nuanced treatments.

I have read more recent and lengthier texts on Islam and the Arab world. Few have demonstrated the admirable qualities of Islam as effectively as this short book.

The vision of the muslim past is a source of enormous power and inspiration in the Arab world today. The vast majority harness it to positive ends to shape their everyday conduct. But it clearly can be husbanded for evil purposes - just read bin Laden's fatwas.

Alexander H. Stephens was a prototypical, antebellum Southern Whig: scholarly, principled, and moral. Yet in many ways his life was compromised as he, along with other Southern politicians, was "compelled to defend the indefensible."

Stephens despite the disadvantages of humble beginnings and a sickly, frail constitution was able, through some fortuitous and generous assistance on the part of others, to climb into the lower ranks of Southern society, first as a lawyer and then as a U. S. Congressman. There, Stephens found himself in entangled in such antebellum controversies as the Mexican Cession, the Wilmot Proviso, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the Lecompton controversy.

Stephens as a Whig was a staunch defender of the Constitution, the Union, and the rule of law. He opposed the Texas annexation and the Mexican War as infringing on those cherished beliefs. However, Stephens was constantly walking a tightrope between his Whiggish principles and the political realities of the South over the issue of slavery. He supported Kansas-Nebraska, but by that time he had been forced to jump ship to the Democracy. Later he committed the apostasy of siding with the northern Democrat Douglas in the Lecompton controversy and then supported him for president in 1860. For this reader the author's coverage of these controversies gets a little confused by his focusing on the various tortured rationalizations of the various parties, including Stephens'.

The author devotes much time to the state of Stephens health in this period (often sick), his mood swings (often in despair), and his need for recognition which is seen in his oratory, his obsessiveness in defending his personal honor (even resorting to challenges for duels), and his somewhat exaggerated views of his own importance. Stephens was a prolific writer of letters, especially to his younger brother Linton, throughout his life, and these are used well by the author to capture Stephens' thinking.

Stephens was one of the leading Southern politicians who opposed the Southern secession. During the War, from his position as Vice-President of the Confederacy, he was a constant thorn in the side of Jefferson Davis, the President. Of course, Stephens construed his opposition as principled. But his opposition to such policies as conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus in the context of Southern survival seems wrong-headed. After the War, Stephens was returned to the House of Representatives and then served as governor of Georgia for four months before his death in 1883 at the age of seventy-one.

At times this book becomes tedious in its detailing of the endless rationalizations and defensiveness of Stephens in his various political dealings through the years. His self-assignment of being more moral, pure, and principled than others wears thin. In addition, for such a lengthy book, it seems that only a glimpse of the broader world shows through and then through Stephens' views and machinations. The reader can become only moderately informed of the events of the day and of Southern society. The book definitely focuses on Stephens, the insatiable and recognition-starved politician, which probably narrows its appeal.

More interesting for an examination of how the perception of Hamilton has changed over time than as a biography (the book is over 100 years old). The author was the Senator who destroyed President Wilson's dream of a League of Nations, leaving him a broken man

This is a short biography of one of the most influential and troubled men in our early history. Brookhiser writes short biographies that gloss over and mention items that are not readily understood by those new to the subject. This volume is no exception. After reading this book, I felt I knew a great deal more about Hamilton; yet I still did not understand him. Much of Hamilton's life is not talked about, including more about his scandals and his personal (or not-so-personal) relationship with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. This book is a good primer for understanding the founder of the Federalist party, but more must be read to understand his very intriguing life.

'Alexander Hamilton, American' presents a well-rounded narrative of an American founding father. Brookhiser paints a portrait of Hamilton with vivid detail. Moreover, he offers a lively narrative of Alexander's life from his heyday as a teen prodigy in St. Croix to his fateful duel with Aaron Burr. Though, this book has drawn criticism foremost for its brevity, it manages to develop an intricate, lively and all too human portrait of Hamilton. Hamilton's administrative genius, economic savvy and statesmanship have masked his humble origins. Brookhiser brings young Alexander to life. He chronicles his practical education as a clerk and his exodus to America for a more erudite education. From there, Hamilton emerges as a patriot, a soldier whose wartime service breaks the tenacity of his youth, as a jurist and a statesman for the fledging republic. Likewise, his ambitious tenure as Treasury Secretary and his struggles with the Jeffersonian Republicans are chronicled. This biography-like Hamilton's life-is cut short by a solemn and foreboding chapter entitled 'Death.'

For the curious, Brookhiser is a neoconservative journalist of the National Review variety and leaves little doubt that he is a Hamiltonian. Some might complain a Hamiltonian doesn't make for objectivity, but I doubt Jefferson's biographer Dumas Malone, (a thorough-going Jeffersonian,) would have gave any semblance of objectivity if he wrote Hamilton's bio. While questions of objectivity abound, I think one has to take an interest and perhaps have a perculiar affinity for their subject, especially if that subject is a founding father. (Myself, I'm more of a Madisonian.)

Though, having read several books on Hamilton, I can't bring myself to write this book off as superficial as so many reviewers have. Brookhiser, however, ambitious has too many books to compete with and doesn't bat an eye as claimant to Hamilton's 'best biographer' by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of mincing words about the succinct nature of this book, I offer other recommendations to suit the discerning reader's fancy. 'Broadus Mitchell' offers an informative two-volume biography on Hamilton or a condensed one-volume version. Forrest McDonald's 'Alexander Hamilton: A Biography' delves deep into Hamilton's political career and statesmanship adding depth and perspectives on the 'Hamiltonian Political Economy.' Clinton Rossiter's work- 'Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution'-remains the best guide to Hamilton's constitutional thought. Of course, 'The Young Hamilton' by James Thomas Flexner gives depth to Hamilton's formative years.

What a wonderful book! "Alexander Hamilton, American" manages to pack quite a bit into 217 pages: the story of Hamilton, a plausible version of his essence and personality, and a survey of the clashes of Revolutionary War generation titans. Richard Brookshiser accomplishes all this beautifully in this brief, highly readable book.

Brookshiser is not interested in all the little details of Hamilton's life and times. He is not interested in reproducing volumes of Hamilton's writings, letters to Hamilton, or articles about Hamilton. He is interested in telling a story, and then making points about the role of words, rights, and passion in Hamilton's character.

I'm guessing that most Americans don't know the story of Alexander Hamilton, the relatively poor immigrant who became one of this nation's most important founders. Hamilton today is respected, but not always revered as some of his opponents like Jefferson and Madison are. Brookshiser reveres him. But he writes with a kind of awe for many who did not share the same feelings for each other. "It is impossible not to love John Adams," (p. 130) Brookshiser writes. Really? Who loved him back then? Not Hamilton, not Jefferson. Hamilton and Jefferson were, of course, at odds with each other, too. But not enough so as to prevent them from joining forces against Aaron Burr in 1800, who eventually killed Hamilton in a duel four years later.

The soap opera intrigue of the founders as highlighted by this book stands out as more severe than any product of current politics. Indeed, all of what people don't like about politics today was magnified and exaggerated in Hamilton's' time: back-biting and betrayal, partisan extremism, grandstanding and demagoguery, biased media, long political careers, abuse of power, corruption, racism, and sex scandals.

Hamilton was the central figure in America's first sex scandal. During his tenure as Washington's first Secretary of the Treasury (Washington alone rises above the fray in Brookshiser's early America), Hamilton was accused of financial shenanigans. Proof lay in payments he made to a shady character named James Reynolds. Hamilton's defense was a detailed confession to an affair with Reynolds' wife - the payments were more or less hush money. Reynolds himself was guilty of many things, including apparently using his wife as bait in this sordid blackmail scheme. Hamilton denied financial malfeasance, but admitted adultery like no American politician since.

I'm not sure if Brookshiser intended his Hamilton to be compared to Bill Clinton, but I couldn't get the comparison out of my head. Hamilton and Clinton share much in common up to a point. Both came from highly inauspicious beginnings but rose to the pinnacles of power. Both came from broken homes with unreliable father-figures who abandoned them early in life. Both were highly intelligent Ivy-League lawyers. Both had faith in the federal government. And both were accused of using their office for personal financial gain, only to have a love affair reveled instead. If this comparison is intentional, Brookshiser may be inviting a contrast between Hamilton's choices at crucial moments and Clinton's. Hamiton, during his war, joined the army and served faithfully under General Washington. Hamilton did not lie about his affair, or even hide any of the details about it (although neither was he proud of the matter - he seemed genuinely regretful). Hamilton was a principled lawyer who used words and law to try to unveil natural rights, not simply win or propel his ambition. To illustrate this last point, Brookshiser uses Burr as Hamilton's foil. But Brookshiser's Burr could also be a more violent stand-in for Bill Clinton. Even if the specter of Clinton is purely illusionary (Brookshiser does not mention him), the personalities and situations of the founders as Brookshiser writes about them are highly accessible to the modern reader.

Brookshiser doesn't let the reader forget that we're reading a book. Brookshiser includes asides, such as the number of words in the book (78,000 - p. 156). Many of these asides are highly humorous, in a very contemporary way - "William Cobbett...wrote under the name Peter Porcupine (not drawn form Plutarch or Livy)" (p. 138); "Tallyrand would serve a republic, an emperor, and three kings, though the only king to whom he was loyal was Brie, the king of cheeses" (p. 136). Somehow, none of this detracts from the book. Brookshiser includes many examples of the founders' own humor as well, suggesting that his writing is in the same vein.

But ultimately "Alexander Hamilton, American" is a serious and respectful book about a serious and important historical figure. Brookshiser clearly believes in the "great man" theory of leadership, and further believes that Hamilton qualifies. Regardless of whether Hamilton was great, this book is a great introduction to the man, and a good story too!

This is a well-written and thought-provoking book, but at the same time one that I found unsatisfactory on certain levels. For one thing, as a biography, it's limited in scope, providing little information about Hamilton's life beyond his administrative and political affairs. His childhood and youth are dispensed with in about 15 pages, and the American Revolution - in which Hamilton participated as an senior aid to Washington and as combat officer - is already over by page 25, bypassing what one assumes should have been a wealth of fascinating material. His wife is mentioned no more that the few times, his children hardly at all, and we learn very little about his personal relationships with the other leading figures of his era. A life-and-times style biography was obviously not part of the author's design in the first place, and this criticism may thus be irrelevant, but a more substantive problem is the bias that pervades his book. While it's common enough for biographers to fall in love with their protagonists, Professor McDonald to carries his enthusiasm to an extreme. I'm not a historian by any means, but I've read enough to know that the men surrounding Alexander Hamilton were a prodigiously gifted array of politicians. Yet a reader who knew nothing of the period beyond the contents of this book would have the impression that they were a collection of relative mediocrities who paled in the light of Hamilton's genius. Even Washington, who comes off better than most, seems to have achieved success only through his willingness to acquiesce, most of the time, to Hamilton's unerring behind-the-scenes guidance. Hamilton's enemies are portrayed as conniving villains, and the arch-villain, Thomas Jefferson, appears to have had no purpose to his life other than to foil Hamilton's otherwise infallible blueprint for a happy and prosperous nation. The fact that Hamilton himself probably more-or-less saw his world in this light is more understandable than how a historian two centuries later could succumb the this same lack of objectivity. Despite these failings, Professor McDonald has nonetheless produced a remarkable study here, and I learned a great deal from it. What emerges is the portrait of a man who, even allowing for the author's partiality, was indeed probably the most forward-looking of his peers in his understanding of what the United States was to become. Modern Americans take for granted their colossal economic might and geopolitical dominance. Yet post-revolutionary America was a weak, divided country run by agrarians generally hostile to the formation of the finance capital and industrial enterprise. The essence of the Federalist vision for America was that establishment of a strong central government was necessary to facilitate economic development. And Hamilton's unique contribution to this vision was his understanding of the critical importance that a dynamic system of national credit and currency would play in bringing about prosperity. Hamilton was a supremely ambitious man, yet his aspirations propelled him not to be a king or a president or a conquering general. When the new American government formed following the revolution, the only post he desired - easily granted to him by Washington - was Treasury Secretary. It was from this position that he believed he could establish the monetary foundations critical to the fledging economic powerhouse he sought to nurture. His political opponents, led by Jefferson, understood this vision only too well as one that would result in a tumultuous transfer of wealth and power to industrialists and bankers, at the expense of the agrarian order they hoped to perpetuate. One insight implicit in this story, even though the author doesn't draw it for us, is the obvious nature of the link between this post-revolutionary conflict and the great civil war what was to ignite half a century later. It couldn't be clearer that it was the Federalist dream for America, well-rooted by the mid-nineteenth century, that drove the Southern Confederacy to revolt. That same dream finally emerged in full flower in the following century as Yankee industrialism triumphed and Hamilton's Dollar achieved preeminence. Hamilton's death in 1805 following a duel with Aaron Burr has to have been one of the weirdest and most dramatic incidents in American history. Yet it is characteristic of this biography that the event is described only briefly and dryly in the epilogue. Hamilton was a brilliant man, but one whose personal arrogance probably contributed unnecessarily to the partisan hatred of the post-war years and no doubt as well to his own premature demise. For me it was interesting to learn that Hamilton's son also died in a dual, three years before his father, at a time when this violent custom had become rare. This remarkable co-incidence suggests a fiery dynamic in the Hamilton family which this book leaves us totally in the dark about, as it does about many other dimensions of his life and character. To the extent Professor McDonald sought to trace Hamilton's development as a political thinker and the practical impact of his work on the nation's founding, this well-written biography succeeds admirably. However, readers seeking a balanced and full account of the man's life will have to look to other sources.

You won't want to put this book about the architect of American government down. McDonald has written an extremely well researched book about Alexander Hamilton, the man who arguably did more to set the American government in motion than any of the other founders. Not only thorougly written, but the author weaves the events of Hamilton's most interesting and significant life into a very readible book. The author is a first class biographer and writer.

Although George Washington has been described as the "indispensible man" of the Revolution, the title "indispensible man of the first administration" rightly belongs to Hamilton. He faced major issues that would define how the government operated and whether or not our fledgling nation would rest upon a sound financial system.

Hamilton succeeded brilliantly. Against long odds, he dealt with the assumption issue (state debts incurred during the revolution), coinage, taxation and the establishment of the nation's credit. This was after effective adminstrative service during the Revolution as Washington's aid (as well as other important posts such as leading the storming of Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown), writing the Federalist Papers with Madison and Jay, and pushing the ratification of the Constitution through a reluctant New York General Assembly.

The book also provides fascinating glimpses of political manuvering among the founders. Although brilliant when establishing our plan of government and enshrining ideals into our framework of governance, they plotted and schemed like the best Tammany Hall politicos. Jefferson is shown to be an idealist even in dealing with current issues. Monroe arguably commits treason when revealing confidential information of President Washington to sympathizers of the French Directorate in order to gain them advantage over the Administration. Madison, so noble in structuring the Constitution, is shown as one of the ablist congressional gamesmen ever to have played.

These are not necessarily criticisms of the founders. While they rightly hold their reputations for having created our Constitutional govenrment, the portrait of their workings within the system -- buffetted by parochial interests, vanity, ambition and all of the other factors at play on public officials, makes them more human and accessible.

Throughout all, Hamilton is a steadying influence on events. Guided by the principals of establishing a system of administration and government that will constrain the bad habits of public men and force their ambitions to work toward the public good, as well his overriding drive to put the nation on sound financial footing, Hamilton is revealed as the keystone of the early Federalist period. Without his steadfastness and talents, it is possible that our ideals may have only been words on a paper labled "Constitution" as a backward nation wallowed in debt and succumbed to the machinations of forces from within and without who would use the United States for their own purposes.

Great book about a Great man.

Forrest McDonald is the only biographer of Hamilton who has what it takes to discuss his subject. As a Professor of Economics and Law, he understands not only the fields in which Hamilton worked, but the historical importance of this brilliant Founding Father.

Hamilton has been subjected to a massive deconstruction by the Jeffersonian Party--and it still goes on. Perhaps TJ made the grand speeches and declarations which define our Republic--but Alexander Hamilton lived the life and took the political risks which have made America the greatest nation on earth. This Founder was no mere politician, no businessman with his eye on the main chance, but a profound economic philosopher.

If you want to read a book which will tell you the truth about Alexander Hamilton, make this the one!