Alexander Hamilton: The Bad Guy Everyone Loves

How you can tell Alexander Hamilton was a bad guy: he is revered by the mainstream Left, the mainstream Right, and the so-called moderates. I talked to Tom DiLorenzo, author of Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for Americans Today, on the Tom Woods Show this week. Here’s a link to the audio, and below you’ll find the YouTube.

Subscribe to the show on iTunes or Stitcher!

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Layla Godey

    I have difficulty understanding where he stood. It seems to me that, while he didn’t want to be subject to the British, he wasn’t exactly against a system of elitism, either…he just wanted to be one of the political elites, and he couldn’t do that as a subject of a country with a King and a “caste” system.

  • Josephine Bass

    Its about time we really blew the lid off
    Hamilton and his followers, do that you can see why the South didnot
    want to stay in a compact with them and lawfully seceded from them. IMO
    before, during, and after the War Between The States, the Bank of
    England backdoored us in the Industrial NE and took over the new nation
    once called THESE United States.

  • mhsy07091017

    Indeed, Hamilton wanted to have an American government ruled by the iron fist of New York investment bankers and financiers, and he was willing to lie his mouth and pen off to the American people in order to sell them on it.

  • mhsy07091017

    These United States, and don’t forget the grammatically correct verb that always went after it, “are,” not “is.”

  • nuwriter

    Doesn’t seem like you have that much trouble understanding him.

  • Stephen Sniegoski

    This was a very interesting program but I have one comment which may fall in the category of trivia.

    Professor DiLorenzo praises Jefferson for his study of and apparent identification with the French physiocrats.

    The physiocrats had their good points in their opposition to mercantilism, though even here they seem to have been questionable in applying
    laissez-faire principles to manufactured goods.

    Rothbard points out that the physiocrats actually took a step backward in their understanding of “technical economics,” believing in objective,
    rather than subjective, value. Rothbard: “Instead, Quesnay,[the movements dominant figure] the would-be ‘scientist,’ rejected subjective value and insisted that the values of goods are ‘objective’ and mystically embedded in various goods irrespective of consumers” subjective valuations. This objective embodiment, according to Quesnay, is the cost of production, which in some way determines the ‘fundamental price’ of every good.” “Blame the Physiocrats for Objective-Value Theory”

  • kirk

    the hamiltonians (small letter intended) have won the argument in the long run over the Jeffersonians, with predictable results we see all around us.

  • TJ

    I remember when I was in third grade reading a book about the Constitution and there was a section that mentioned Hamilton wanting to have the president elected for life. I stopped and thought to myself, “Is this guy crazy?” Apparently I wasn’t far off.

  • Mike

    The first time I ran into that was years ago when I was reading some LRC article. I was wondering why Jefferson and rest either didn’t just shoot that punk or at least deported him. They JUST finished fighting a war against that kind of crap!

  • TJ

    Yeah, he didn’t seem to get the whole revolution thing. Unfortunately that’s not why Aaron Burr shot him, from what I understand.

  • mhsy07091017

    Um, they won the struggle for power, not the argument. Big difference.

  • mhsy07091017

    Yep, that’s the outrageously-named Federalist Party for you. John Adams once opined that an American MONARCHY might be a good idea for a government.