I read an interesting passage from Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton. (the same book from which most of the historical content in the Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hit musical is drawn) Chapter 18 is provocatively entitled as a reference to Hamilton’s work in the Federalist No. 12, Of Avarice and Enterprise. The chapter begins with some interesting thoughts about Hamilton’s place amongst the founders, his unique contributions to American economic thought, and some historical insight into the way that entrepreneurship is perceived in America.
Chernow, citing noted historian, Gordon Wood, argues that as the unparalleled economic expert of the founding generation, Hamilton’s historical esteem has waxed and waned with the presently prevailing opinion of businessmen in America. Although Hamilton’s own beliefs, as demonstrated in his many writings on the subject of commerce, do not neatly fit into the capitalist (or any easily-classifiable) paradigm, he has largely been seen as the capitalist par excellence of the founding generation.
Both Hamilton and Franklin believed there to be something special about the American propensity for entrepreneurship. Franklin once wrote, “As to whatever may depend on enterprise, we need not fear to be outdone by any people on earth. It may almost be said that enterprise is our element.” In Hamilton’s ascent from an impoverished boyhood in the Caribbean to being one of the preeminent lawyers and statesmen of his time, we see hints of an almost cliché “American Dream” story.
Despite Hamilton’s inexorable connection to capitalism and the “rise up” (a VERY recurring phrase in Miranda’s musical) type of story that he represents, the man himself had a very strong sense of what the government’s role in maintaining a healthy economy should be. Most modern-day conservatives and capitalists would squirm at many of his policies and proposals such as his excise tax on domestically produced-whiskey, his vision for a strong central bank, his adoption policy under which states’ debts were assumed by the central government, and a variety of others.
What this passage made me wonder can be distilled into two types of questions:

1. Is there, as Franklin suggested, something inherent in the American experience that drives us to be entrepreneurs? Are our business behaviors all that different from those found in other capitalist societies? How does our entrepreneurship differ from entrepreneurship in similarly-situated post-industrial nations, such as Germany or Great Britain.

2. Is Hamilton’s waxing and waning reputation based on a false dichotomy that represents a lack of understanding of history? Is the currently- prevailing historical estimation of Hamilton at a given time based on the fact that it is merely the easiest route to classify a complex figure as standing for a “consistent” ideology that we can think about in modern terms and without thinking too hard about the complexities he presents?