Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:33:36.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

1853: The End of Bimetallism in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

David A. Martin
David A. Martin
Affiliation:
State University of New York, College at Geneseo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The circumstances resulting in the Coinage Act of February 21, 1853 support Harry Johnson's thesis that historically fiduciary money has been substituted “for commodity-money in response to the interaction of scarcity of the latter and ingenuity in devising the former.” The Act of 1853 replaced bimetallism in the U.S. with a Composite Legal Tender System composed of a subsidiary small silver coinage adjunct to a de facto gold standard. After 1853 bimetallism remained only as a legal fiction which was finally terminated twenty years later.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 1973 , pp. 825 - 844
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Johnson, Harry G., “Should Gold be Scrapped?,” The National Banking Review, II (June, 1965), 457.Google Scholar

2 Bimetallism required a fixed mint ratio, free coinage, unlimited legal tender for both monies, and the right to convert all coin to bullion at the pleasure of the holder. Subsidiary money is defined as the silver species of the fiduciary genus of money which bears a denominational value in excess of that of its intrinsic content. See Nussbaum, Arthur, Money in the Law (Chicago: Foundation Press, 1939), p. 67Google Scholar. Various classifications of monetary systems, including the Composite Legal Tender System, are discussed in Jevons, W. Stanley, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1921), pp. 85–6.Google Scholar

3 Weinstein, Allen, “Was There a ‘Crime of 1873’?: The Case of the Demonetized Dollar,” Journal of American History, LIV (September 1967), 311–2.Google Scholar

4 This thesis is fully developed in Martin, David A., “Bimetallism in the United States Before 1850,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXVI (April 1968), 428–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 “Theoretical Metallism” is rooted in the premise “that it is logically essential for money to consist of, or to be covered by, some commodity so that the logical source of the exchange value or purchasing power of money is the exchange value or purchasing power of that commodity considered independently of its monetary role.” Schumpeter, Joseph A., History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 288.Google Scholar

6 Marcet, J. H., Conversations on Political Economy in Which the Elements of that Science are Familiarly Explained (New York: E. Duyckinck, 1820), p. 232Google Scholar. See also McCulloch, J. R., The Principles of Political Economy (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1849), p. 135Google Scholar: “Money is itself, a commodity: it is not a sign, it is the thing signified.”

7 Fosdick, David, “Interest or Money,” Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXII (March 1850), 276.Google Scholar

8 Stetson, Caleb, “Of the Discoveries of Gold in California and Australia,” Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXIX (August 1853), 180–1Google Scholar. See Spengler, Joseph J., “Coin Shortage: Modern and Pre Modern,” National Banking Review, III (December 1965), 205–6, 215.Google Scholar

9 O'Leary, Paul M., “The Scene of the Crime of 1873 Revisited: A Note,” Journal of Political Economy, LXVIII (August 1960), 388–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnett, Paul, “The Crime of 1873 Re-examined,” Agricultural History, XXXVIII (July 1964), 178–181.Google Scholar

10 Hepburn, A. Barton, History of the Coinage and Currency in the United States (New York: Macmillan. 1903), p. 49Google Scholar; Laughlin, J. Laurence, The History of Bimetallism in the United States (New York: D. Appleton Co., 1894), pp. 79–81Google Scholar; Bowen, Francis, American Political Economy (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1875), pp. 266–7Google Scholar; Poor, Henry V., “Debtor and Creditor,” North American Review, CXXVII (July-August 1878), 126.Google Scholar

11 United States Treasury Dept., Report of Treasury Secretary Taney on the Deposit Banks, April 15, 1834, III (Washington: Blair & Rives, 1837), 454–55Google Scholar. The Act of June 28, 1834 had actually established the ratio of 16.002 to 1. The ratio was altered to 15.988 to 1 on January 18, 1837 when the fineness of both gold and silver coins was equated at .900.

12 For the monthly average price ratio in London from 1845 to 1860, see: Proceedings of the International Monetary Conference, 1881 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1887), 55.Google Scholar

13 United States Senate, Coinage Laws of the United States, 1792 to 1894 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1894), 40–97Google Scholar; United States Treasury Dept., Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1896 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1879), 282Google Scholar, 284. It has been argued by Edward J. Stevens that there is no evidence that the Mint output went into actual circulation and that “it seems reasonable to think that most of Mint output was exported.” See “Composition of the Money Stock Prior to the Civil War,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, III (February 1971), 86Google Scholar. However, Stevens' claim is not documented and is not supported by the evidence presented by the contemporary sources cited in footnotes 13–20 below.

14 “Monthly Financial and Commercial Article,” The U.S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XVIII (January 1846), 66Google Scholar; Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register (July, 1861), 64.

15 The U.S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XVIII (February 1846), 149Google Scholar; XVIII (June 1846), 468; Niles National Register, LXVII (November 30, 1844), 208.

16 The U.S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XIII (October 1843), 438Google Scholar; XIII (November 1843), 548; XIV (January 1844), 95; XIV (February 1844), 211; XVI (January 1845), 92; XVI (March 1845), 309; Hunt's Merchants Magazine, V (July 1841), 103; VIII (February 1843), 178; Niles National Register, LXVI (July 20, 1844), 336.

17 The U.S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XIV (March 1844), 318–19Google Scholar; XIV (June 1844), 657, reported that “much the largest portion” of the thirty million of specie imported during the past eighteen months “has passed in circulation.” Hunt's Merchants Magazine, X (February 1844), 168.

18 The U.S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XVI (March 1845), 308. This claim was based on both observation and calculation of increasing coinage, decreasing bank specie reserves, estimates of consumption, and net specie imports. However, substantial amounts of foreign silver coin remained in circulation. Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XVI (February 1847), 185.

19 Hunt's Merchants Magazine, X (March 1844), 245. Francis Bowen stated that after resumption and until “the influx of California gold disturbed the market … the gold and silver coins circulated side by side, … the metallic currency of the United States was composed in great part of silver.” See “Chevalier on the Depreciation of Gold,” North American Review, LXXVI (April 1853), 520Google Scholar, 522. See also, “The Depreciation of Gold,” North American Review, LXXXIX (October 1859), 351.Google Scholar

20 McCulloch, Hugh, Men and Measures of Half a Century (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, 1875), p. 119Google Scholar. The silver share of the composition of specie on hand in the State Bank of Indiana between 1840 and 1847 ranged from a high of 95 percent in 1842 to a low of 80 percent in 1844. No breakdown was provided between 1848 and 1852. However, in October, 1853 gold made up 91 percent of the specie reserve. See Harding, William F., “The State Bank of Indiana,” Journal of Political Economy, IV (December 1895), 113.Google Scholar

21 United States Treasury Dept., Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December, 1849 (Washington, D.C.: John C. Rives, 1851), 20Google Scholar. See also, The Commercial Review of the South and the West, V (February 1848), 174.

22 United States Treasury Dept., Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December, 1847 (Washington, D.C.: John C. Rives, 1851), 129Google Scholar, 184; Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XVII (October 1847), 403; (December 1847), 602. Russian gold production rose from about seven million dollars in 1841 to nineteen million in 1847. See United States Treasury Dept., Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1884 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1884), 85Google Scholar; “Monthly Financial and Commercial Article,” The U.S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XVI (May 1845), 505.Google Scholar

23 United States Treasury Dept., Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1896, 282, 284.

24 United States Treasury Dept., Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1889, (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1889), 161Google Scholar; Fiamingo, G. M., “The Measure of the Value of Money According to European Economists,” Journal of Political Economy, VII (December 1898), 61.Google Scholar

25 Bezanson, Anne, Gray, Robert D., Hussey, Miriam, Wholesale Prices in Philadelphia, 1784–1861, I (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936), pp. 9, 238CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jevons, W. Stanley, Investigations in Currency and Finance (London: Macmillan, 1884), pp. 109, 110, 138Google Scholar; Shenoy, B. R., “A Classification of Currency Standards,” Indian Journal of Economics, XVII (October 1936), 142.Google Scholar

26 The current cost of shipping coin was often published in Hunt's Merchants Magazine. The cost of six typical transportations between 1844 and 1848 averaged 1.04 percent. See XI (November 1844), pp. 454–5 and XVII (October 1847), p. 203. Daniel Webster stated in April, 1850 that “the expense of sending gold to England is supposed to be about one per cent.” Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., XXI, Pt. 1, p. 815. The cost of an actual shipment of U.S. gold coin from New York City to Liverpool in 1851 was less than one percent. Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register, I (October 1851), 274.

27 Spanish milled dollars sold at a seven percent premium. Spanish and Mexican fractions, “depreciated ten to fifteen per cent,” which had been at par to a half of one percent discount in January, 1850, were quoted at a one percent premium in January, 1851. Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXIV (February 1851), 209.

28 Letter of Mint Director Patterson to Brady, William V., Postmaster of New York, January 13, 1851. Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXIV (February 1851), 245–6.Google Scholar

29 The Latin America large silver contained from one to five percent more metal than the U.S. standard. The foreign small silver was typically five to twenty percent underweight. The American coin ratio was 15.988 to 1. The metal ratio of Latin American dollars to the American gold unit was over 16 to 1, whereas the exchange price of depreciated foreign fractional silver which passed in domestic commerce at tale rates was below 15 to 1. As the world price of gold declined, the Latin American dollars were the first to vanish from the money supply. They were quickly followed by the full weight federal silver. The worn and multilated foreign fractions remained until the bitter end. See Pond, Shepard, “The Spanish Dollar,” Business Historical Review, XV (February 1941), 14–15.Google Scholar

30 Berry, Thomas S., Western Prices Before 1861 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), pp. 489, 493.Google Scholar

31 Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVIII (February 1853), 211; Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register, III (November 1853), 435.

32 Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVIII (April 1853), 487; See also, Barnard, B. W., “The Use of Private Tokens for Money in the United States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXXI (August 1917), 614–17.Google Scholar

33 In 1849, the Mint stated that six million dollars of Spanish silver remained in circulation. See Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXIII (September 1850), 335. Since specie circulation was about $75 million in. 1849, all foreign silver still composed at least ten percent of the metallic currency.

34 Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., 57, 71; Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XVII (February 1847), 186; (September, 1847), 292; United States Treasury Dept., Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances, December, 1848 (Washington, D.C.: John C. Rives, 1851), 300Google Scholar; The Whig Almanac and United States Register for 1847 (New York: Greely and McElrath, 1847), p. 23Google Scholar; The Commercial Review of the South and West, IV (September 1847), 92.

35 Niles National Register, LXVIII (January 11, 1845), 304; Colwell, Stephen, “Money of Account—Its Nature and Functions,” Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVI (April 1852), 407Google Scholar; Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXIII (September 1850), 335.

36 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., XXI, pt. I, 69, 277, 345.

37 Bullion subsidiary plans had been unsuccessfully proposed thrice previously: by Treasury Secretary Crawford in 1820 and by Senator Benton in 1836. See American State Papers, Finance III, 495–500; Annals of Congress, 16th Cong., 2d Sess., 1004; United States Senate, Journal of the Senate, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., #296, 33; and House Report 278, 76. A bullion three cent piece had also been proposed in 1848 (House of Representatives, Journal of the House of Representatives, 30th Cong., 2d Sess., #536, 113). See also, Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXIV (February 1851), 266.

38 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., XXI, pt. I, 986, 1124; Bankers' Magazine, V (June 1850), 32.

39 Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., XXVI, Pt. I, 476; United States Senate, Journal of the Senate, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., #548, 248, 370, 389, 926, Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., XXI, Pt. I, 1442.

40 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 2d Sess., XXIII, 84–93, 139–144, 165–171, 216–225, 227, 815, et passim.

41 Carothers, Neil, Fractional Money (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1930), p. 108Google Scholar. See also, Kemmerer, Edwin W., Money (New York: Macmillan, 1935), p. 353.Google Scholar

42 March, 1800: American State Papers, Finance, I (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1832), 632Google Scholar; February, 1802: Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 485, 1238, 1240; April, 1816: American State Papers, Finance, III (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1834), 127–129Google Scholar; January, 1819: ibid., 398–400; Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 2d Sess., I, 322, 788, 796. The bill was ridiculed by a New York writer, “Senex,” in the New York Daily Advertiser, March 19, 1819. See Rothbard, Murray N., The Panic of 1819 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 132.Google Scholar December, 1826: American State Papers, Finance, V (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1859), 586–689Google Scholar; May, 1830: “Report of Treasury Secretary Ingham to the United States Senate,” May 4, 1830, United States Senate, Proceedings of the International Conference of 1878 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1879), 562–580Google Scholar; June, 1832: House of Representatives, House Report 278, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., #261, 7–17; February, 1834: ibid., 1–2; Congressional Debates, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., X, Pt. 4, 4644; Hayes, H. G., “Bimetallism Before and After 1834,” American Economic Review, XXIII (December 1933), 677–9.Google Scholar There were also three bullion proposals. See Footnote 37.

43 United States Treasury Dept., Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1879 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1879), 11.Google Scholar

44 United States Senate, Senate Executive Document 31, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., VII, #618, 2.

45 United States Senate, Senate Executive Document 39, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., III, #660, 2.

46 Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVII (October 1852), 465.

47 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 2d Sess., XXIII, 192, 226, 227.

48 The four overvaluations were 7.76, 7.28, 7.3 and 7.4 percent, respectively. The half dollar was made more subsidiary to counter its large scale export. The greater reduction of the half dime was due to fractional convenience. See Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 2d Sess., XXIII, 410, 671, and United States Senate, Journal of the Senate, 31st Cong., 2d Sess., #586, 429.

49 Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., XXIV, Pt. I, 122.

50 United States Senate, Report of the Monetary Commission, 1876 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1877), 196, 198.Google Scholar

51 United States Treasury Dept., Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 26, 1851 (Washington, D.C.: John C. Rives, 1852), 8–14.Google Scholar

52 United States Senate, Senate Report 104, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., I, #630, 1–14.

53 Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., XXIV, Pt. II, 907, 921, 1235. The bill also met opposition in the House because of a minor provision which authorized a coinage charge of 0.5 percent, to discourage the use or the Mint as a refinery by gold miners. Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVI (May 1852), 559.

54 United States Treasury Dept., Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, January 15, 1853 (Washington, D.C.: John C. Rives, 1854), II.Google Scholar

55 United States Senate, Senate Executive Document 39, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., III, #660, 2.

56 Congressional Globe 32d Cong., 2d Sess., XXVI, Pt. 2, Appendix, 190–192.

57 Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., XXVI, Pt. I, 475–7, 629–30.

58 ibid. 490–92, 629–30, 639, 644.

59 United States Senate, Coinage Laws of the United States, 27–28.

60 The mint ratio of the new silver standard was reduced to 14.88 and therefore one hundred dollars of the new coins were worth only $97.09 as a commodity during 1853. Despite the continued appreciation of silver in the world market before 1860, the metallic value of the subsidiary issues reached a high of only $97.98 in 1859. To insure a supply of raw material, the Mint purchased silver at premium prices from western banks and brokers. See Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register, II (June 1853), 1004Google Scholar, and III (September 1853), 263.

61 Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVIII (May 1853), 594; XXIX (August 1853), 206; XXX (February 1854), 224; Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register, I (March 1852), 752.

62 The precise reason for the preservation of the full bodied silver dollar was never made explicit in the discussions. Mint Director Pollock, stated in 1861 that Congress preserved the “old dollar, known from the beginning of our coinage,” because it was “often exactly stipulated for in deeds of rent-charge, mortgages, and other moneyed securities.” It was also “supposed to be needed for our China and East India trade.” See United States Treasury Dept., “Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, June 30, 1861,” Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances for the Year Ending June 30, 1861 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1861), 63Google Scholar. On January 17, 1863 Pollock stated that “The object … was to make gold coin the effective measure of value, and to place silver in a subsidiary position, as it has long been in English coinage.” See Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register (March 1863), 671.

63 White, Horace, Money and Banking (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1895), p. 35.Google Scholar

64 Carothers, Fractional Money, pp. 116, 118.

65 For example, see Nussbaum, Arthur, A History of the Dollar. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), p. 83.Google Scholar

66 Hunt's Merchants Magazine, XXVI (January 1852), 72; XXVI (April 1852), 461. See also, Bankers' Magazine and Statistical Register, I (March 1852), 756.

67 Senate Report 104, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., 10, 12.

68 Francis Bowen, “Chevalier on the Depreciation of Gold,” p. 521.

69 Each of above possibilities was advanced in Hunt's Merchants Magazine by contemporary monetary writers during the congressional considerations of the subsidiary coinage bill. See: Editorial, XXVI (May 1852), 600–3; Tucker, George, “California Gold: With Reference to the Relative Value of Gold and Silver,” XXIV (January 1851), 20–22Google Scholar; Tucker, George, “Our Metallic Currency,” XXVII (August 1852), 178Google Scholar; Colwell, Stephen, “Money of Account—Its Nature and Functions,” Pt. II, XXVI (May 1852), 555–6Google Scholar; “The Currency—Gold and Silver,” XXV (March 1852), 32; Sulley, Richard, “Money and the Measure of Value,” XXIX (November 1853), 581.Google Scholar