I suspect from his book title that he has written this book in response to John Steele Gordon’s book “Hamilton’s Blessing.” Gordon’s book is also an awful book in its interpretation of Alexander Hamilton. DiLorenzo needs to spend more time studying his subject before writing a book.

Here is what I have written concerning Hamilton’s selection as the first Secretary of the Treasury. Perhaps it will educate DiLorenzo.

In April 1789, on his [George Washington] way to his inauguration, he stopped in Philadelphia to pay a personal visit to Robert Morris. During the war Congress had selected Morris as superintendent of finance, and he had drawn from his own personal fortune to pay salaries and compensate Washington’s spies. Morris had only recently reentered the private business world so when Washington offered him the position of Secretary of the Treasury he declined for personal reasons.

Washington, surprised, stated that he had never talked national finances with Hamilton. Morris then told Washington about his correspondence with Hamilton during the war and that at age 23 while still on Washington’s staff, Hamilton had sent Morris a 31 page plan for a national bank which Morris immediately introduced to congress to charter America’s first commercial bank, the First National Bank of North America.

So that you do not misunderstand Mises did not reject a central monetary authority, but Mises did reject the Federal Reserve. The difference betweent he two is the difference between night and day. Without understanding the difference you cannot understand Hamilton’s desire to have a national bank.

“I think DiLorenzo’s book is just an example of the dangers of “knee-jerk reactions” to the lies that we have been conditioned to believe.”

Perhaps you should elaborate on what those lies are because, as readers of this blog know, there are some very radical authors. For instance, I would argue that one of the lies we have been told is that we need a State for protection. If you read DiLorenzo’s books from this point of view, his argument becomes very clear and quite convincing. If on the other hand, you still believe the illusion that we need a State, then Hamilton’s Curse will look like a hatchet job which does not nuance Hamilton’s plans for the nation.

So this is the question you should ask yourself: “Am I an anti-State libertarian or not?” Your answer will clarify your reactions to books and blog posts at this site.