This is supposed to be the thesis of the article, but the author offers nothing at all to support it. The flow went something like this:
I. I am an objective novice
II. I interviewed DiLorenzo and Ferrier, the arguing experts
III. Honesty is important
IV. Lincoln defeated Jefferson for Hamilton
V. Both DiLorenzo and Ferrier distort the facts in their personal arguments with each other
That's it. The real title of the article should be "Novice student has ephiphany that Lincoln was a Hamiltonian: Just take his word for it." What a joke. I would think even a novice would consider the Federalist Era (not exactly an esoteric secret of American history) to be a series of crushing and lasting blows to Jefferson's vision, pitting Jefferson and Madison against not just Hamilton, but Washington, Adams, and Marshall. Hamilton takes the fall for the lot of them, because he is the least likable and least admired. One also might note Madison's own endorsement in the 1830's of Websterian Whig policy. One also might consider Old Hickory as something of a significant man in the history of American republicanism, and the balance of powers, both political and economic. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a novice.
Metcalf works for notorious Confederate glorifier Joseph Farah, who once wrote that "[t]he trouble is that most people today really think the Civil War was fought over slavery. It was not." This latest piece reads like Metcalf really doesn't want to get involved in the debate over Lincoln, but since he has to write something about it, he had better agree with Farah if he wants the paychecks to keep coming.