The 1802 Effort to Abolish the Mint-- The House Approves Disestablishment

JCH22

The 1802 Effort to Abolish the Mint—The House Approves—Boudinot’s Privatization Proposal— Jefferson and the Senate Rebuff (longer non-fitting version of Discussion Title)

The Mint narrowly survived a substantial disestablishment attempt in 1802.

Is anyone aware of any extended look into this attempt? I am considering doing a deeper dive, but only if that ground has not already been fully covered. If it’s been done already, be much appreciated to know.

Upon first look, it appears to have been a serious attempt which involved---on the surface---- the financial viability of the Mint. Historically, it is also of broader interest as it shows political divisions in the early republic over monetary policy.

A Bill disestablishing the Mint passed the House on April 26. 1802. It was sent to the Senate. In the meanwhile, Elisa Boudinot made a proposal he be authorized to take the mint private if de-established (perhaps the first-time privation of a previous government function arose?). Ultimately the Senate, with perhaps input from Jefferson, returned the Bill unpassed.

Debate on the Bill in the House: Excerpts—opening 2 pages of an extended debate:

Links to full debate in the House, House Passage, Boudinot’s proposal, Jefferson, Senate rejection, Journals of the Senate of the 7th Congress are available should anyone wish.

Nysoto

The most in-depth published research on this subject was in Don Taxay's The U.S. Mint and Coinage: An Illustrated History From 1776 to the Present. Taxay wrote a 15-page chapter "Congress vs the Mint" which summarized efforts by Congress, starting with the 1794-95 Committee on the Mint which was led by Elias Boudinot prior to his appointment as Mint Director, going though subsequent congressional criticism of the Mint, and finally the 1802 Bill to abolish the Mint. Taxay's book can be purchased used, it is not very expensive.

Most of the congressional action was based on operational cost and inefficiencies of the Mint, along with political differences on monetary policy. Taxay's work could be expanded on, including other uses for the Mint such as the fabrication and engraving of federal revenue stamps 1797-1802, used to help finance warships for the Quasi-War and First Barbary War. Chief Engraver Robert Scot also wrote a letter on March 4, 1802, to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin requesting an exclusive contract for copper coinage in the event of Mint abolishment, "That I may be vested with the exclusive privilege, according to law, of coining cents of the United States." An excerpt is in Taxay's book, the full letter is published in my biography of Scot.

JCH22

@Nysoto

Much appreciated the reference. The stand down from the Quasi-War, following the Convention of 1800 did seem to spark a new /renewed interest in conservative fiscal policy-- again bringing the Mint's deficits back into focus,

Thanks for the reference to Scot's letter. Did locate a transcript

May I ask the cite for your book on Scot?

Nysoto

@JCH22 asked:

May I ask the cite for your book on Scot?

Nyberg, William F. Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty. Staunton, VA: American History Press, 2015.

WorldCat Library listing: https://search.worldcat.org/title/919106086 (also in ANA and ANS libraries).

Second printing 2022 is print on demand, price varies considerably, cheapest seems to be Amazon $24.95.

Sapyx

Some of the arguments, both for and against the Mint, seem to be lacking in facts.

...it cost half a dollar to make a cent...

This smacks of exaggeration, and probably cherrypicking of data?

The small states of Germany still coin money, so does Scotland, but he did not think such coinage any mark of their independence.

Many of the "small states of Germany" didn't have their own mint, but usually contracted out their coinage production to larger neighbouring states. It was certainly a point of "national pride" for a state to be wealthy enough to have its own mint. Ever since the invention of coinage, a city or state exercising the right to issue its own coinage has been a demonstration of independence.

Scotland, however, was not striking its own coins in 1802 - they had ceased coinage production a hundred years earlier with the Act of Union in 1707, and has been using British coins ever since. The Scottish Mint still made British coins for a few years after Union, but the British shut it down soon afterwards as being not economically viable. Indeed, the complete lack of Scottish coins was a certain sign that Scotland was not an independent nation any more.

...we might, at much less expense than as now, send to Birmingham, England, to have our copper coined...

Yes, Birmingham was at the time the world centre for production of cheap, high-quality copper coins and tokens, and by 1802 token production in Britain had largely ceased, so the private mints were seeking customers further afield. But in 1802, Britain may have sought peace but was not yet a friendly power. I wonder how that reliance on British sources for coinage would have gone over a decade later, during the War of 1812...

JCH22

@Sapyx :

If of interest, Pages 485-492, 1237-1242 below contain fuller debates
https://www.congress.gov/annals-of-congress/page-headings/7th-congress/the-mint/26028

Political divisions were acute up to, and after, the election of 1800.