What Built an Empire in 1790 Won’t Save It in 2026
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”— Thomas Jefferson
When the Trump administration—and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in particular—began invoking Alexander Hamilton as the blueprint for a new American economic order, I had to pause. I knew Hamilton from the ten-dollar bill and a Broadway show, but I couldn’t have defined “Hamiltonian economics” to save my life.
More importantly, I had no idea whether resurrecting his 18th-century playbook in the 21st was a stroke of genius or historical malpractice. So I went back to the beginning to find out—and what I discovered wasn’t just a history lesson. It was a nation so fragile, so broke, and so shackled to its former enemy that it barely qualified as a country at all. What I found was not a forgotten genius, but the original sin of American crony capitalism.
In 1789, Alexander Hamilton walked into the Treasury Department to discover a nation bankrupt, its war debts unpaid, and its financial future hanging by a thread.
America had won the Revolutionary War, but the United States was $54 million in debt. In its day, this sum was so enormous that few believed it could ever be repaid—especially since the entire federal government’s annual budget was barely a few million dollars. The nation was broke before it had even really begun.
Picture the scene. Each state printed its own money, which meant a dollar in New York might be worth something different from a dollar in Virginia. There was no credit abroad. European investors viewed America as a risky bet, a failed experiment that might collapse back into British rule. There was no central bank to stabilize anything. The states squabbled among themselves like rival kingdoms, each negotiating its own trade deals and imposing tariffs on goods from neighboring states.
In short, America lacked a financial center, and its economy was still organized around serving British interests—even though Britain was the enemy it had just defeated in a long and bloody war. American ships carried American goods, but the profits flowed to London. American farmers grew tobacco and wheat, but the prices were set in Liverpool. American merchants bought manufactured goods, but British middlemen took their cut.
The nation was, in every meaningful sense, a puppet—independent only in name.
Hamilton claimed to understand what many of his contemporaries refused to see: political independence without economic independence was a lie. You could write all the declarations you wanted and wave all the flags you pleased. If your economy served another empire, you were not really a nation, but a colony.
So Hamilton did something audacious. Over 1790 and 1791, he laid out a comprehensive strategy for building an American economy from the ground up—a series of landmark reports to Congress that would shape the nation’s destiny for centuries.
The Four Pillars of Hamilton’s Vision
Hamilton’s program rested on four pillars, each designed to solve a specific problem.
First, he proposed that the federal government assume all state war debts. Hamilton knew that a nation honoring its obligations could borrow again. He was building America’s credit—so it could secure cheap loans for future investments in infrastructure, defense, and expansion.
Second, he created a Bank of the United States, modeled on the Bank of England. Its immediate mission was to provide something the country desperately lacked: a stable national currency. Before the bank, you might get paid in New York dollars, Virginia pounds, or Massachusetts shillings—and nobody could agree on what any of it was worth.
But Hamilton had a deeper agenda. By tying the financial interests of wealthy investors to the federal government, he ensured they would defend it out of pure self-interest. Political genius disguised as economics.
Third, he championed infant industries. American manufacturers couldn’t compete with established European factories, which boasted skilled workers, advanced machinery, and vast economies of scale. America’s fledgling producers needed protection to survive.
Hamilton pushed for protective tariffs—taxes on imported goods—and government subsidies to nurture domestic manufacturing. His reasoning was simple: a nation that could not produce its own weapons, ships, and tools could not truly defend itself. Economic independence, he argued, was national security.
Fourth, all of this cost money. The government couldn’t assume state debts, run a national bank, and subsidize factories without revenue. So Hamilton proposed a series of taxes, including an excise tax on distilled spirits—whiskey.
The tax sparked the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, when frontier farmers took up arms in protest. President Washington responded by marching 13,000 federal troops into western Pennsylvania—and the rebellion dissolved without a battle.
The message was unmistakable: this new government didn’t just pass laws. It enforced them.
Why It Appeared to Work in the Late 1700s
Hamilton’s program appeared to succeed—but only in the narrow sense that it centralized power and enriched a connected few. It was not a universal solution. It was a blueprint for crony capitalism that took root from the very beginning.
The United States in 1790 was an empty lot. There was no entrenched financial system to tear down, no established industrial base to displace, no complex global supply chains to disrupt. The government could create institutions because few existed. It could borrow strategically because there was no crushing debt overhang to choke future investment. It could protect infant industries because those industries were genuinely young.
Hamilton wasn’t discovering eternal economic truths. He set out to solve specific problems in a specific time and place.
The question now is whether a playbook written for an empty lot can be applied to a sprawling, entrenched, hyper-globalized superpower—or whether the very conditions that made Hamilton’s vision possible are precisely what make it impossible to replicate today.
The First Critical Clue
But we must be precise about what Hamilton actually did.
He did not invent this machinery.
Hamilton looked to the Bank of England—created in 1694, when private financiers bailed out a cash-starved king in exchange for a banking monopoly. That bargain trapped the government in a soul-selling relationship: its survival would forever depend on private credit.
He studied the British statutes, took the Bank’s charter, and copied it—clause for clause. The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Bray Hammond showed that entire sections of the original 1694 Bank of England Act appear almost verbatim in the First Bank of the United States’ charter, down to the rule that the bank could not buy government bonds without specific legislative approval.
Clause after clause, Hamilton lifted the British playbook.
His pitch to Congress was essentially: “This is how England did it, and how it became a titan. America will do the same.”
So the pattern is not that Hamilton invented and America built. The pattern is more uncomfortable: England invented, America copied—and then magnified England’s deepest flaws.
That financial machinery gradually relocated from London to New York. The Federal Reserve—America’s own central bank, modeled on the same English system—was created in 1913. Two world wars devastated Europe, and Bretton Woods in 1944 formally crowned the dollar as the world’s anchor currency.
The United States did not merely escape British domination. It became the British Empire’s successor, building the world’s largest economy using the same tools: debt, credit, and government-guided development. The pattern continued—but the context had changed.
Hamilton did not create the modern financial system. He could not have imagined the Federal Reserve, the end of Bretton Woods, globalized supply chains, trillion-dollar deficits, or a world in which financial assets dwarf productive investment. What he helped establish was something more fundamental: a governing logic.
National credit could be mobilized to build national power. Debt, properly managed, was not merely a burden. It was an instrument of statecraft.
That logic was revolutionary in 1790.
But a tool designed to build a nation can become something very different when it survives long enough to sustain an empire after the empire has stopped building.
His system of national credit evolved into perpetual debt—but not debt for building. Debt for consuming. Today’s government borrows endlessly to finance entitlements, military bases, and interest on past borrowing. It is not investment. It is survival on credit.
His support for new industries gave way to a hollowed-out heartland. For a century, those industries thrived—but as globalized trade accelerated and factories chased cheaper labor overseas in the late 20th century, cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland were stripped of their purpose. The industrial base Hamilton nurtured became the industrial base America abandoned.
The currency system he imported became the world’s reserve—the dollar that prices oil, that central banks hoard, that global trade runs on. Unlike the 1790s, when the dollar was tied to gold and silver, today’s version is pure fiat currency, backed by nothing but faith. Its value rests on a collective belief that dollars are “real money.” That belief is the foundation of American economic power today—and it is shockingly fragile.
Success, however, casts a long shadow. The mechanisms that built the nation eventually distorted it into something Hamilton—and the Englishmen before him—would barely recognize.
Which brings us to the question this essay has been circling all along: if the architecture was borrowed, and the borrower has now hollowed out what it built, what happens when a new set of builders decides to erect their own version—with gold at its center, and the dollar at its periphery?
The Promethean Delusion
This is the contradiction at the heart of American mythology.
Americans have been raised on the Promethean narrative—the story of a self-made nation, forged by genius and will, that pulled itself up from nothing. Hamilton is the archetype: the orphan immigrant who built a financial system with his bare hands. The Federalist Papers. The Constitution. The American miracle.
It is a beautiful story. It is also a lie.
Hamilton did not invent. He copied. The Bank of England’s charter was not a blueprint for American greatness—it was a photocopy, clause for clause, right down to the parliamentary restrictions. The machinery that built the American empire was imported wholesale from the very empire Americans had just fought to escape.
But borrowing is not the problem. Every civilization inherits. Rome borrowed from Greece. Renaissance Europe rediscovered Rome. America borrowed from Britain. The problem begins when borrowing is forgotten.
Once a civilization mistakes an inheritance for an invention, it begins to believe its institutions are expressions of its own genius rather than solutions inherited from a particular historical moment.
That is the Promethean delusion.
Americans still tell themselves the myth: that they are exceptional, self-sufficient, chosen. That their system is unique. That the dollar’s supremacy is natural, ordained, eternal.
Here is the truth the myth conceals: the United States rose to dominance not by producing more than anyone else, but by borrowing more than anyone else. It became the world’s largest economy not by building better, but by copying—and then perfecting—the English system of debt-fueled empire.
The scam is this: Americans believe they are self-sufficient. They are not. They believe their wealth is earned. Much of it is borrowed. They believe their dollar is backed by gold, or industry, or strength. It is backed by nothing but belief.
Prometheus stole fire from the gods—not to keep, but to give. To lift mankind from darkness. To share the spark of creation.
America stole its fire from Britain. But it didn’t share the flame. It hoarded it, stoked it, and let it rage out of control.
The borrowed machinery of debt and credit that Hamilton imported—clause for clause, charter for charter—has become a consuming inferno. It hollowed out the industrial heartland. It devoured the savings of generations. It reduced the promise of self-sufficiency to embers.
The American Prometheus faces a punishment crueler than an eagle pecking at his liver. He must watch, powerless, as the fire he stole burns down the very country he built—slowly, agonizingly, and entirely of its own making.
The Unspoken Terror
This is the unspoken terror at the heart of the modern American economy.
When the dollar was crowned with gold at Bretton Woods, the United States was the world’s largest producer. Today, it is the world’s largest consumer. It imports everything from semiconductors to pharmaceuticals, from rare earth minerals to finished electronics. These goods flow through a global supply chain that depends on the dollar holding its value. If the dollar collapses, the supply chain collapses.
But the dollar’s value is no longer backed by gold—or even by American industry. It is backed by narrative: the carefully managed belief that American debt is safe, American institutions stable, American power enduring. Faith, not fact. Officials, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and the media all maintain this narrative. Behind it all, the world’s most powerful military enforces the system’s boundaries. It works as long as people believe it—and as long as they fear the consequences of not believing.
The fear—seldom spoken aloud—is that this narrative could unravel. If the world’s major producers of energy, resources, and manufactured goods began to question the dollar as “real money,” the consequences would be catastrophic. The United States would be exposed as a nation that borrows rather than produces, consumes rather than builds—dependent on the world while pretending otherwise.
The only thing keeping the system running is confidence. And confidence, once lost, is almost impossible to regain.
This is the world Hamilton built—and one he would scarcely recognize. The fragile, indebted, industrially backward nation he sought to strengthen has become a vast, indebted, industrially hollowed superpower. The strategic competition he faced from European empires has been replaced by competition from nations that produce real wealth—energy, resources, and manufactured goods—while America produces debt.
The Modern Hamiltonian Mimicry
When President Biden signed the CHIPS Act in 2022, supporters called it a Hamiltonian moment. Billions poured into semiconductors to restore domestic manufacturing and bolster national security.
Trump called it “a horrible, horrible thing” and told Congress to “get rid of it.” Then he used its funding to buy a federal stake in Intel. He denounced Biden’s industrial policy—then pursued his own, less accountable version.
Look closely at the strategy here. It is not opposition, but continuity wearing a different costume.
Hamilton built from nothing. Biden and Trump are trying to restore what was offshored, outsourced, and abandoned over forty years. These are two completely different situations.
You cannot build a new system without first tearing down the old one—and the old one now holds trillions in wealth conjured from financial instruments out of nothing, backed by nothing but debt.
Modern Hamiltonian thinkers are arguing for alchemy, not growth. They believe they can turn debt into gold—rebuild factories, outcompete nations with no such burdens, and keep the world believing in the dollar—all while preserving the paper wealth that rests on nothing. It is a fantasy.
But in a deindustrialized, debt-saturated economy, tariffs and subsidies are not solutions. They are magic shows—preserving the appearance of economic health while the foundation crumbles. They raise prices for American consumers, disrupt global supply chains, and provoke retaliation from trading partners who hold trillions in American debt. In 1790, the debt was manageable because the economy was tiny and poised for explosive growth. Today’s $40 trillion debt is a crushing weight—relative to a productive base that has been systematically hollowed out.
Why do our leaders persist in this fantasy? The answer lies not in economics, but in psychology. They are not stupid—they are trapped. Hamilton’s program was a creation strategy. Theirs is a restoration strategy. Creation requires building something new. Restoration requires admitting that something was lost—and admitting loss is politically radioactive. So they dress up restoration as creation. They call tariffs “industrial policy” and subsidies “nation-building.” They invoke Hamilton’s name to give their salvage operation the dignity of a founding vision.
But salvage is not creation. And pretending otherwise does not change the condition of the wreckage.
The Unraveling
The dollar will not collapse overnight. It will unravel gradually—as central banks diversify, oil producers accept alternatives, and international trade settles in yuan, euros, or other currencies. Interest rates will rise as demand for American debt weakens. The cost of imports will climb. Inflation will accelerate. The American standard of living—sustained for decades by cheap imports financed by borrowing—will contract.
Americans, prepared for none of this, will be shocked, angry, and confused. They will look for someone to blame. But the blame lies not with any single president or party. It lies with decades of choices that privileged consumption over production, debt over investment, narrative over reality.
The question we must face is whether we are ready to be honest about what comes next.
Hamiltonian economics made sense for a society ready to build. It may also make sense for a society ready for collapse—but only if that society is honest about the scale of the crisis. The current application of Hamiltonian rhetoric, without that honesty, is not a strategy. It is a sedative.
Modern Hamiltonians ask Americans to consume, borrow, and believe. They ask them to trust that the debt does not matter, that the dollar will always be the world’s reserve currency, that America’s best days are still ahead.
That is not a strategy. It is a tragedy—deepened precisely because we have mistaken the context and ignored the timing.
History does not repeat itself. But it does tempt us to repeat its answers long after we have forgotten the questions they were designed to solve.
Sources
Bray Hammond, Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War (Princeton University Press, 1957). Pulitzer Prize–winning historian who documented the Bank of England’s charter appearing verbatim in the First Bank of the United States.
Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (Penguin Press, 2004). Standard modern biography of Hamilton, covering the $54 million federal debt and the 1790 Treasury reports.
If this essay resonated with you, I would love to hear your thoughts. And if you would like to support more work like this, you can support me on Patreon, BuyMeACoffee, or Substack. Thank you for reading.
“Outstanding, sophisticated, and mesmerizing…a spiritual intrigue similar to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.” —ForeWord Reviews