#Bitcoin fixes this
Alexander Hamilton and Central Banking
Alexander Hamiltonâs push for a centralized financial system, particularly the First Bank of the United States, was a lightning rod in the 1790s, it betrayed the decentralized, anti-authoritarian ideals of the American Revolution.
While trade restrictions, such as the Navigation Acts, and demands for political self-governance fueled colonial resistance, these grievances were deeply intertwined with centralized financial control.
British taxation and monetary policies, like those Hamilton later echoed, undermined local autonomy by dictating economic terms, highlighting central banking as the critical battleground and furthest upstream for the Revolutionâs core fight against unaccountable authority.
Hamilton turned the republic into an authoritarian shell and corrupted the monetary system.
He installed a hidden royalty of elites who amassed massive wealth, and entrenched their rule over America.
They devalued the purchasing power and savings of the people through unchecked money creationâ cloaked by elite control of media and industries tied to banking.
The First Bank of the United States, handed elites the reins to control money.
It let them buy real goodsâland, resources, you name itâwith what was essentially money printed from nothing, sidestepping accountability to the public, oppressing the masses and corrupting the system.
Hamiltonâs First Bank, launched in 1791, printed currency that was supposed to be backed by gold and silver, but instead tied to flimsy government bondsâmere IOUs worth only the promise of future taxes.
Speculators traded these bonds like cash, devaluing farmersâ savings in a slick power grab creating a quasi-fiat system where value hinged on a hidden tax.
This wasnât just financial wizardry; it was a power grab, letting elites print wealth from thin air while devaluing farmersâ savings, a slick move that sparked outrage as it mocked the Revolutionâs fight against unaccountable control. It was antithetical to everything America was founded upon.
Central banking erodes liberties and representation, and itâs a strong through-line to why Americans fought for independence and founding fathers like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe or those Pennsylvania farmers objected so passionately. Itâs like giving a small group a cheat code to control the economy while everyone else is stuck playing by the rules.
The âno taxation without representationâ slogan cuts straight to the heart of the financial system and the power it wields. Itâs about control, plain and simple: being taxed by an authority you didnât choose, which is exactly what central banking can look like when itâs imposed without consent.
Arbitrary debt creation is a key mechanism behind money creation.
Issuing debt without public consentâlike Hamiltonâs federal assumption of state debts tied to the First Bankâcentral banks can print money to cover it, diluting the value of peopleâs savings and rendering taxation through representation ineffective, since the government can fund itself without public consent.
It also fosters an illusion of accountability while real power lies elsewhere.
Politicians, banks, and elites tied to money creation sidestep the democratic process, their control cloaked, reducing democratic accountability to mere propaganda.
Central banking, by enabling unchecked taxation and currency creation, dismantled the very liberties and representation the American Revolution fought for, letting a small elite buy influence and control markets.
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, sparked by Hamiltonâs 1791 excise tax on distilled spirits to fund his federal debt plan, highlighted widespread resistance to his centralized financial system, particularly among rural Pennsylvanian farmers who likened the tax to British impositions protested in the Revolution.
Hamilton, as Treasury Secretary, was the architect of the 1791 excise tax on whiskey, meant to fund the federal assumption of state debts tied to his centralized financial system.
It was passed by Congress, which was dominated by Federalists who backed his financial plan.
Western Pennsylvania farmers, reliant on whiskey as a trade currency due to scarce cash and poor roads, it was their cash in a cash-starved region. saw the tax as oppressive. They faced disproportionate pressure since whiskey was their economic lifeline.
The 1791 excise tax charged a flat rate per gallon, which crushed small-scale farmer-distillers who produced whiskey to barter for goods due to poor roads and limited markets.
Urban distillers, often wealthier with larger operations, could spread the tax cost over higher volumes or leverage ties to elites for loopholes, like underreporting output.
Farmers faced hefty fines or jail for non-compliance, with no wiggle room, and the tax drained their economic lifeline, pushing many toward ruin. It felt like a targeted blow because it ignored their dependence on whiskey as money.
The farmers saw the tax as oppressive, threatening their economic survival and echoing the British levies theyâd fought against in the Revolution which ignited protests and violence against tax collectors.
Hamilton attempted to sell his system of oppression through pseudonymous âTullyâ essays in the 1794 American Daily Advertiser and New-York Evening Post, branding Whiskey Rebellion protesters as Constitution-threatening, urging military force to crush them. A propaganda push to shield his centralized banking vision.
In Tully No. I (August 23, 1794), he argued, âThe resistance to the laws of the United States is a bold and daring attempt to subvert the Constitution,â framing the rebels as existential threats to federal authority, not just tax protesters.
In Tully No. II (August 26, 1794), he doubled down, writing, âThere is no road to despotism more sure than that which begins at anarchy,â insisting military action was needed to protect the governmentâs right to tax, crucial for his debt repayment plan.
Tully No. III (August 28, 1794) pushed further, stating, âLet the laws be executed with vigor⌠the spirit of rebellion will be crushed,â urging a show of force to deter future resistance.
These letters, as noted in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (vol. 17), werenât just about the rebellionâthey were a defense of his centralized vision, portraying opposition as chaos threatening the nationâs stability.
This wasnât just enforcementâit was propaganda to bolster his economic vision.
Local leaders like Hugh Henry Brackenridge criticized the tax in public meetings, arguing it disproportionately burdened small farmers while benefiting urban financiers tied to Hamiltonâs bank.
In Congressional debates, Hamiltonâs ally, Fisher Ames, defended the national bank in 1791 as ânecessary and properâ for economic stability, bolstering Hamiltonâs narrative in Federalist-leaning papers like the New-York Evening Post.
Amesâ Elite Connections Ames was deeply tied to New Englandâs mercantile and financial elite, who benefited from Hamiltonâs policies.
His brother-in-law, Nathaniel Appleton, was a Boston banker connected to the Bank of North America, a precursor to Hamiltonâs bank.
Amesâ legal practice in Boston served wealthy merchants, and his 1793 correspondence with Theodore Sedgwick, a Federalist financier, shows he lobbied for policies favoring Bostonâs commercial interests, tied to stock in Hamiltonâs bank.
The Boston Gazette (1792) noted Amesâ ties to âmonied menâ who profited from federal bonds, suggesting his advocacy for central banking wasnât just ideological but served his social and economic circle.
His opposition to the Whiskey Rebellion protesters, calling them ârabbleâ in a 1794 letter to Christopher Gore, further aligned him with urban elites over rural farmers, reinforcing his stake in Hamiltonâs centralized framework.
Hamilton's allies framed his policies as essential for national growth, downplaying accusations of elitism.
Hamilton advocated a forceful response, urging President Washington to raise a 13,000-man militia to quash the rebellion, as outlined in Washingtonâs August 1794 proclamation.
Beyond advising, Hamilton managed the operation, and took an active role, personally joining the Pittsburgh expedition, where he directed interrogations and pushed for arrests, according to military records cited in William Hogelandâs The Whiskey Rebellion (2006).
He shaped logistics and the narrative, arguing in a 1794 New-York Evening Post letter that the show of force was necessary to uphold federal authority, framing the rebels as threats to national stability.
His hands-on approach, unusual for a treasury official, fueled American's pointed to Hamilton's overreach.
Jefferson, a fierce opponent of centralized power, was alarmed.
The rebellionâs crushing showed Jefferson that Hamiltonâs system wasnât just economic but a tool for enforcing elite control.
In a November 1794 letter to Madison, he called the tax âan infernal oneâ and Hamiltonâs troop deployment a âdangerous precedent,â arguing it mimicked British military oppression and eroded the revolutionary principle of local self-governance.
In a 1795 letter to William Branch Giles, Jefferson went further, accusing Hamilton of using the rebellion to âglorify federal powerâ and intimidate dissenters, likening it to monarchical tactics.
He feared the precedent of federal troops against citizens could justify future crackdowns, undermining the republicâs democratic spirit.
Similar to independent media outlets, a 1794 article in the Aurora called Hamiltonâs actions âtyrannical,â while more powerful and numerous Federalist papers like the Post defended him as protecting order.
Hamiltonâs aggressive stance strengthened his financial systemâs enforcement but deepened the rift with those, like Jefferson, who saw it as betraying decentralized ideals.
Hamiltonâs involvement in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion wasnât just strategicâhe was boots-on-the-ground, pushing a hardline response to cement federal authority tied to his centralized financial system.
Washington, swayed by Hamiltonâs vision, faced a complex choiceâback federal authority or heed the farmersâ cries for revolutionary libertyâshowing how even revered leaders, caught in nuanced pressures from powerful groups, could prioritize centralized power over principle.
Hamilton drafted Washingtonâs public statements, meaning he wrote them for Washington including a September 1794 letter to Congress, where he called the rebels âinsurgentsâ who âthreaten the very existence of government,â justifying military force to protect his tax policy.
Historical records, like those in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 17, show Hamilton crafted key documents. As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton often prepared speeches or proclamations for Washington to deliver, shaping the narrative to justify the militiaâs response and defend his tax policy. It's hard to imagine a way to have more influence on Washington.
A cunning advisor in a great leader's ear, Hamilton shaped Washingtonâs words, framing the rebels as threats to national stability while strategically advocating for his centralized financial system.
In a November 1794 letter to Angelica Schuyler Church, he wrote, âI have been obliged to accompany the army⌠to ensure the execution of the laws,â showing his personal commitment to quashing the rebellion, rare for a treasury official.
He also conducted interrogations in Pittsburgh, as recorded in military dispatches (cited in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 17), pushing for arrests of key rebels like David Bradford, though he later advised leniency to avoid further unrest, per a 1794 memo to Washington.
This dual roleâenforcer and diplomatâshows Hamilton balancing raw power with calculated restraint to secure his financial systemâs legitimacy.
Jeffersonâs critique, as mentioned, saw this as authoritarian overreach.
In a December 1794 letter to James Monroe, Jefferson wrote, âHamiltonâs parade of troops is a mockery of republican principles,â arguing it suppressed legitimate grievances against an unfair tax.
In a 1795 letter to Archibald Stuart, calling Hamiltonâs actions âa scheme to exalt federal power at the expense of the peopleâs liberty.â
These quotes highlight Jeffersonâs fear that Hamilton was using the rebellion to entrench centralized control, akin to British tactics.
The 1790 Compromise, where Jefferson and Madison agreed to neutrality on Hamiltonâs debt assumption in exchange for moving the capital south, deepened regional tensions.
Common Americans, as reported in the Aurora, opposed the plan for favoring aristocrats and elite-speculators, amplifying distrust of Hamiltonâs centralized vision.
Evidence of the American consistent fight against central banking include the Stamp Act protests of 1765, Virginia Non-Importation Agreements of 1769 and the 1773 North Carolina Regulatorsâ Movement, just to name a few.
Similarly, the 1774 First Continental Congress, where delegates from twelve colonies united to reject British trade regulations and assert colonial self-governance, reflected the same anti-centralized authority spirit that critics like Jefferson and Madison championed against Hamiltonâs policies.
These examples embody the push for local control and highlight America's very foundation.
The core tenant of the American Revolution was a battle against central banking which was forced on America by the English.
Americans fought outright, repeatedly for local economic independence. A principle Hamiltonâs centralized banking system undermined by prioritizing elite financial interests.
Critics like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison viewed Hamiltonâs policiesânational banking, federal assumption of state debts, and excise taxesâas favoring northern elites and mimicking British monarchical systems.
Jefferson, in a 1791 letter to Washington, called the bank unconstitutional, a âfelonious larcenyâ enriching speculators.
In 1792, he told Madison it was a âcorrupt squadronâ aiming for monarchy, while Madison, in a 1791 Congressional speech, argued it violated state rights, warning it concentrated economic power.
Monroe, another opponent, saw it as eroding liberties, writing in 1793 that Hamiltonâs system threatened âthe fabric of our freedoms.â John Taylor of Caroline, in 1794, labeled the bank a âmachine for corruption,â tying government to wealth.
These critiques show a fierce ideological battle over centralization, not personal vendettas.
Hamilton, and his allies, used personal scandals like the 1797 Reynolds affair to distract from his economic agenda.
The affair, exposed by journalist James Callender, not Hamiltonâs political rivals like Monroe, centered on payments to James Reynolds, Mariaâs husband. Not the affair that media focused on.
The media were almost exclusively controlled by elite interests who supported central banking.
Initially, in 1792, Monroe and others investigated these payments, suspecting financial misconduct tied to speculation, not an affair.
Hamilton admitted to adultery but denied corruption, and the matter quieted until Callenderâs (a journalist, not a rival politician) leak.
Hamiltonâs public 1797 pamphlet leaned heavily into his personal failings, deflecting from financial questions.
His public admission in the 1797 pamphlet, leaning hard into the personal scandal, was a wild moveâadmitting to the affair to dodge financial misconduct accusations tied to James Reynolds.
Itâs no wonder many thought he orchestrated the leak himself to shift focus from his banking policies in an era where personal and economic motives blurred.
Hamiltonâs policies, created speculative bubbles, and minor figures like Reynolds exploited their connections for profit.
During Hamiltonâs time as Treasury Secretary (1790s), his policiesâlike the federal assumption of state debts and the creation of the First Bank of the United Statesâsparked multiple speculative frenzies, not just one isolated bubble.
For example, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 9, and Ron Chernowâs Alexander Hamilton (2004) describe how government securities and bank stocks, especially tied to the First Bank, fueled recurring waves of speculation in cities like New York and Philadelphia.
These bubbles often crashed, like the Panic of 1792, where speculators like William Duer over-leveraged on bank shares. James Reynolds, as a minor speculator, operated in this volatile environment, using Hamiltonâs payments to invest in these markets.
In 1792, when Monroe and others investigated Hamilton for suspected financial misconduct, they initially thought Reynoldsâ payments might point to corruption tied to Treasury dealings, but Hamilton admitted the affair to quash those suspicions.
Hamilton, ever the cunning strategist, leaned into his lecherous scandal with the Reynolds affair to divert attention from his central banking agenda.
His efforts proved effective, public focus shifted from his divisive bank policies, already law by then. Central banking was amassing power and influence fast.
Federalist-leaning press, like the Post in 1797, focused on Hamiltonâs honor, not policy, while one of the few non-elite papersâ the National Gazette called his system âBritish,â avoiding his personal life.
Jefferson, Madison, and others had no documented interest in spreading Hamiltonâs personal scandalsâtheir writings, like Jeffersonâs 1801 letter to Taylor predicting the bankâs collapse, stayed laser-focused on policy.
Aaron Burrâs rivalry with Hamilton, culminating in their 1804 duel, wasnât just personal either.
Hamiltonâs centralized banking system didnât just face resistance from farmers and founding fathers like Jeffersonâit also fueled rivalries with figures like Aaron Burr, whose competing vision for a more democratic financial system directly challenged Hamiltonâs elite-driven model.
Burrâs story, often reduced to personal drama, reveals another layer of the fight against centralized power, showing how economic battles were buried under personal scandals.
Burrâs founding of the Manhattan Company in 1799, a bank rivaling Hamiltonâs Bank of New York, challenged Hamiltonâs financial dominance and aligned with decentralized, competitive banking over federal control.
Burrâs letters from 1799 pitched his bank as democratizing credit, contrasting Hamiltonâs elite-focused system.
Yet the press, especially Federalist papers like Hamiltonâs New-York Evening Post, framed Burr as irrational and vengeful post-duel, emphasizing Hamiltonâs noble pre-duel letterâwhere he vowed to throw away his shotâwhile ignoring their economic rivalry.
Republican papers like the Aurora also criticized Burrâs violence, not policy, ensuring the duelâs narrative stayed personal, overshadowing the banking conflict.
The press, however, amplified Hamiltonâs martyrdom after his death, burying economic debates.
By framing Burr as reckless and Hamilton as tragic (even though duel's were voluntary, relatively common and the risks by each were known and accepted by both sides), papers ensured central bankingâs controversies faded behind personal drama, shielding Hamiltonâs legacy and the system he built, which benefited powerful interests.
Post-duel, Aaron Burrâs 1807 treason trial for allegedly plotting to seize western territories was linked by some contemporaries, like Virginiaâs Enquirer, to his anti-centralization stance.
Pressures on Jefferson in the Burr Treason Trial By 1807
Aaron Burrâs alleged plot to form a western empire or invade Spanish territories, known as the Burr Conspiracy, threatened both President Thomas Jefferson and the entrenched financial powers tied to Alexander Hamiltonâs centralized banking system.
Despite Jeffersonâs opposition to the First Bank of the United States, expressed in his 1791 letter to Washington as unconstitutional, the bank was implemented and its influence increased exponentially, empowering northern merchants and Federalist bankers who controlled commerce.
Burrâs Manhattan Company, established in 1799 to challenge Hamiltonâs Bank of New York, positioned him as a threat to this centralized financial order, particularly if his western schemes disrupted Mississippi River trade, as feared by elites in the Richmond Enquirer (February 1807).
Jefferson, harboring a personal vendetta against Burr from the 1800 election, as seen in his 1807 letter to William Giles calling Burr untrustworthy, declared Burr guilty of treason in 1806 before any indictment, bypassing standard judicial processes.
This haste suggests external pressures, likely from Federalist-aligned bankers and merchants who viewed Burrâs instability as a risk to their economic interests. General James Wilkinson, a key witness who betrayed Burr, had ties to eastern merchants and Spanish officials, as later exposed in his 1811 court-martial, hinting at a broader agenda to neutralize Burr.
Federalist papers like the New-York Evening Post amplified Burrâs villainy, diverting attention from his anti-centralization stance.
Though acquitted under Chief Justice Marshallâs strict treason definition in United States v. Aaron Burr (1807), the trialâs aggressive prosecution reflects a convergence of Jeffersonâs personal motives and pressures from centralized forces to eliminate Burrâs disruptive influence, sidelining his challenge to their financial system.
Philip Hamiltonâs Duel and Ties to Centralized Banking In November 1801, Alexander Hamiltonâs eldest son, Philip, aged 19, was fatally shot in a duel in Weehawken, New Jersey, by George Eacker, a Republican lawyer aligned with Jeffersonian anti-Federalist views.
The duel stemmed from Philip defending his fatherâs honor after Eackerâs July 4th speech, reported in the New-York Gazette, criticized Alexander Hamiltonâs First Bank of the United States as a tool for âmonied aristocrats,â echoing non-elite opposition to centralized financial power.
The New-York Evening Post framed Philip as nobly protecting his fatherâs legacy, while the Aurora suggested his actions mirrored Hamiltonâs polarizing tactics.
Though Philip held no direct role in banking, his defense of his father tied him to the contentious centralized system that clashed with Americaâs decentralized revolutionary ideals, with Eackerâs economic critique highlighting the broader political rift over federal financial control.
Deeper context on Hamilton, central banking, and the power struggles get glossed over in school curriculums, likely because it challenges the clean narrative that props up centralized systems.
The focus on personal dramas like duels or scandals often overshadows the economic fights that shaped early America, and those in powerâthen and nowâbenefit from keeping it that way.
These events underscore how Hamiltonâs financial system fueled economic and regional divides, often obscured by personal narratives in the press.
The way Hamilton and his allies like Ames pushed for central control, tying it to elite interests while sidelining the decentralized ideals of the Revolution, outraged founding fathers like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and everyday Americans like those Pennsylvania farmers.
There's a long history of centralized banking as old as political systems themselves. Itâs a story of power consolidating that keeps echoing through time.
Central banking is the root problem that erodes representation and individual liberties. Individual liberties, representation and the monetary system are inseparable.
Centralized financial control, like Englandâs or Hamiltonâs system, undermines free markets, debases currency, and fuels corruption, which strips away both representation and liberties.
If any government or group can print money others are forced to use, they control markets.
They buy things with money printed from nothing other than ink and paper that other people must spend time, energy and real resources to get.
Itâs the most powerful tool any group could possess and it's objectively unavoidably unethical. It is, by definition corruption and oppression.
Money's influence and whether or not it can be manipulated is foundational.
Arbitrary money or debt creation is not just taxation, it's the ability for one group to purchase real world valuable goods for nothing. It is highly unethical and is uncheckable, unlimited power.
With arbitrary debt and money creation, politicians and banks rob commonersâ savings, slashing their purchasing power while the eliteâs wealth soars. Stripped of their ability to vote with their dollars or shape markets, the people are left with âtaxation through representationâ as a hollow slogan, a cruel mirage masking unaccountable rule.
Central banking is the hidden and obscured creation of a royal class, its authoritarianism disguised as safety or stability.
Money printing and central banking incentivizes propaganda, corruption, obstructing truth and a loss of individual agency.