Parenti makes the same error Chernow does in reading this quote out of context: "If Shays had not been a desperate debtor it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war."

There's a mistaken sense that H had sympathy for the plight of poor farming debtors and wanted an economic recovery in order to help equalize benefits, etc. That's not at all what that essay is talking about.

The idea that to bring about peace in the American class war, Hamilton wanted economic recovery is no doubt partially true. He also wanted that recovery to be what today we would call regressive and to crush progressive efforts with military force.

Also it's convenient but hugely misleading to associate opposition to Hamilton solely with the agrarian Southern planter elite.

"Hamilton drew up the blueprints for a planned economy — a capitalist economy, to be sure, but one that would be guided by a long-range sense of the country’s problems and potentials. And that was just what worried the reactionaries of his day."

... that's way too pat and shows the weakness of looking at history through a determinist lens. "A capitalist economy, to be sure, but" here means "not good, I admit, but." Is the "left" reading here OK with the anti-democratic impulse behind H's policies? Maybe!

As long as there's a centrally planned economy, progress is being made? Hm.

I'm responding to the short version of Parenti's Hamilton argument, 2014, here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/

Pointing out that "best government governs least" stuff can't help address climate change doesn't have to send us to Hamilton!

The left's supposed current attachment to Jefferson is a straw man anyway.

Finally, to go back to the point of the opening tweet here: Pretty sure that if Chernow hadn't told some research assistant one fine day to see whether Hamilton ever said anything about Shays, that goofy out-of-context quote wouldn't have gotten around to mislead people.