In the terms of the debate over the relative liberalism and republicanism of the American founders, Alexander Hamilton's advocacy of manufacturing, public credit, and a national bank would seem to classify him as characteristically modern and liberal. Hamilton's unswerving dedication to an energetic and powerful central government oriented toward financial stability and military security contrasts with classical republican concerns about individual virtue, the nature of good lives, and the problem of individual and institutional corruption. As much by its neglect of classical topics like civic education as by its new treatment of perennial political subjects, the new political science he announced in The Federalist and elsewhere broke with the ideals of the good republic held by the ancients.

Michael D. Chan counters the standard view by arguing that Hamilton's vision of America as a commercial republic has much in common with classical theories of political economy. Chan's argument relies on a reconstruction of both Hamilton and Aristotle—the representative of classical theory—on the relationships among commerce, the state, and political society. Just as Hamilton will turn out to be less typically “modern,” under Chan's account Aristotle will be less typically “classical.” Though the title suggests an even treatment of the two, the book devotes two chapters to Aristotle's Politics, just enough to develop the idea that Aristotle was not hostile to commerce. The remaining five chapters address Hamilton's political theory and policies. The author takes care to note that he is not implying that Hamilton was Aristotelian, nor does he show that Hamilton was directly influenced by any reading of Aristotle. Rather, he points out the linkages between commerce and virtue that both thinkers made.

Aristotle thought a life devoted to commercial activities was defective for individuals and society. As he wrote in Politics, Book VII, Chapter 9, “in the state which is best governed and possesses men who are just absolutely … the citizens must not lead the life of artisans or tradesmen, for such a life is ignoble and inimical to excellence.” This is not to say that property holding erodes virtue, since it is clear from Aristotle's famous critique of Plato's communalism that owning property makes possible virtues like sharing and giving. Further, Chan shows how Aristotle connected the development of excellence to a certain level of economic resources, what we would call standard of living. In his assessment of good constitutions, Aristotle finds commercial Carthage praiseworthy for its stability, absence of tyranny, and political arrangements. Less frugal and agrarian than Sparta, Carthage is as worthy a constitutional model for city-states in similar conditions, in Aristotle's view. Though as engaging as the rest of this well-crafted book, these closely exegetical chapters contain little on Aristotle that would not be discovered simply by reading the Politics with an eye sympathetic to commercial activity. Additionally, the chapters serve only to bridge the divide between the ancients and the moderns in the limited way that the narrow focus on Aristotle's Politics allows, since they do not consider other works by Aristotle or by any other classical thinkers in much detail.

Chan believes that Hamilton embraced both ancient and modern “prudence,” a term of art meaning an attitude and a form of practical reason. To be prudent in an ancient and modern way is to be realistic about how human beings behave, but also to draw on well-considered ideals to seek out ways of shaping and influencing people so that good lives and good societies and good states take form. Additionally, this prudence dictates “close attention to particulars” and warns against “theoretic politicians who treat political things as if they were abstractions that can be as easily manipulated as a set of numbers” (p. 57).

Hamilton prudently argued for increased commercial activity that could lead to national prosperity, allow for a greater equality of economic opportunity, and ultimately support national defense. Chan finds an underlying Aristotelian logic here: a good life—or at the least the American way of life—made possible through the fiscal policies of wise statesmen who recognize the manifold benefits of commerce. Hamilton's commercial republic sought to employ “economic policy to forge Americans into a frugal, industrious, temperate, orderly, prudent, liberal, and law-abiding people” (p. 140). Though this interpretation strikes me as too classical in the tight connection it assumes in Hamilton's mind between good lives and good policy, Chan is right to remind readers just how instrumental commerce is for accomplishing Hamilton's primary ends: national security and a strong central government. Protecting domestic manufacturing, for example, has the potential for leading to technical innovation crucial in modern warfare. Sound public credit is equally useful for securing foreign assistance in times of conflict. In this way, commercial activity is a necessary addition to the classical military virtues of strength and courage. Hamilton saw close links among commercial, political, and social ties and recognized how advantageous it was for federal power and for the creation of a national identity for the central government to assume state revolutionary war debts and to establish sound public credit. Such fiscal policies would contribute to the strength of the central government by joining its fate to that of powerful economic interests.

By inviting us to see Hamilton as a prudent statesman, the book reveals otherwise hidden affinities between Hamilton and the classical tradition. Yet such heavily laden concepts as “prudence” and “statesmanship” used uncritically may themselves be impediments to a more complete inquiry into Hamilton's thought. “Is Hamilton a prudent statesman in Aristotelian terms” is a guiding question that severely limits inquiry into the origins, contradictions, lacunae, and ultimately, the significance of his policies. Although in all fairness the book is devoted to the quasi-classical sensibility of Hamilton's political economy, it is still strange, for example, for Chan to neglect Hamilton's views on the proper power of the executive branch, and to fail to attend more critically to Hamilton's brand of federalism in which the central government would clearly dominate state governments. These are controversial and difficult strands of Hamiltonian statesmanship that prudent scholars and citizens alike should consider.