A “Gold Bug” with “Coin” from the 1896 Presidential Campaign
BillJones
Posts: 34,799 ✭✭✭✭✭
Recently I purchased this stickpin in a political items auction. It’s an 1896 gold bug holding a small token that has “Sound Money” on it. During the 1896 and 1900 presidential elections those who supported the “free coinage” of silver were called “silver bugs” while those who supported the gold standard were called “gold bugs.” Some of those who belonged to the respective sides often wore badges to show their political position.
Here is a picture of a piece of “sound money” for the times. It is an 1896 double eagle. This is a fairly common date in the series although it is many times scarcer than the ubiquitous 1904 $20 gold coins. This piece is in a PCGS MS-63 holder, and it’s bit more attractive “in person” than it is on this picture.
The only reason I’ve kept this piece in my collection is the date. Our coinage played the largest role that it ever would have in presidential election in 1896.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
0
Comments
The Cross of Gold speech is probably the best remembered part of the campaign, but the gold bug stick pin is the cat's meow.
Obscurum per obscurius
A real gold bug
<< <i>I remember reading there were "Bryan dollars" made as well. They were made out of a full $1 worth of silver at the time. Anyone ever see one of those around? >>
Here's one that was made by the Gorham Silver Company
And here is one by Tiffany. The other side of this piece is blank.
The Gorham piece is pretty common as these things go. The Tiffany piece is scarce.
cross of gold speech
The short read:
we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them:
You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns;
you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
To be fair, one could have made a great case for increasing the money supply to an extent back then. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had drained the Federal Government’s supply of gold. Under the gold standard, that limited the amount of money that the Federal Government could place in circulation. The trouble with Bryan’s plan was that it was like turning on the printing presses and issuing an unlimited supply of money which would have resulted in massive inflation. That is the type of thing that banana republics do. In short Bryan’s free silver platform was a dangerous scheme.
<< <i>And cutting through the hocus pocus, the Bryan solution was allow the money supply to increase with virtually no limit. The idea was that those in debt would get to pay off their loans with cheaper dollars.
To be fair, one could have made a great case for increasing the money supply to an extent back then. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had drained the Federal Government’s supply of gold. Under the gold standard, that limited the amount of money that the Federal Government could place in circulation. The trouble with Bryan’s plan was that it was like turning on the printing presses and issuing an unlimited supply of money which would have resulted in massive inflation. That is the type of thing that banana republics do. In short Bryan’s free silver platform was a dangerous scheme. >>
But certainly less dangerous than the fiat money scheme we have now. At least Bryan would have retained some precious metal backing to the currency.
<< <i>
<< <i>And cutting through the hocus pocus, the Bryan solution was allow the money supply to increase with virtually no limit. The idea was that those in debt would get to pay off their loans with cheaper dollars.
To be fair, one could have made a great case for increasing the money supply to an extent back then. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had drained the Federal Government’s supply of gold. Under the gold standard, that limited the amount of money that the Federal Government could place in circulation. The trouble with Bryan’s plan was that it was like turning on the printing presses and issuing an unlimited supply of money which would have resulted in massive inflation. That is the type of thing that banana republics do. In short Bryan’s free silver platform was a dangerous scheme. >>
But certainly less dangerous than the fiat money scheme we have now. At least Bryan would have retained some precious metal backing to the currency. >>
I don't think that I can win this argument, but I'll try. What you are advocating is the commodity theory of money, which states that money derives its value from the precious metal it contains or the stock of gold or silver that backs it.
Money derives its value from its purchasing power. If the dollar’s purchasing power dips below the value of the precious metal you can get from a dollar, people will convert their dollars to precious metal. If a dollar buys more than the precious metal that backs the dollar, people will use and keep their dollars. In other words, backing in precious metal cannot save a currency from a defunct economy. All the gold standard can do is limit the amount of money in circulation, which can be a good or bad thing.
Bryan was right about the “cross of gold.” The economy should not be held in irons by the amount of one commodity a nation holds. But he was wrong when he placed no limits on the amount of money that could be added to the economy. Back in the 1890s there was so much silver being mined out of the ground that it was really a “junk metal” back then. For example in 1896 the price of silver was 66.4 cents an ounce. That meant that a Morgan Dollar had 51.3 cents worth of silver in it.
Bottom line - We are FAR better off today with an expert like Alan Greenspan running the Federal Reserve than we ever were during the 19th century.
thanks for sharing your gold bug pin, that is one cool piece of history!
Doug
Congress was following the lead of seveal European countries when they passed that act.
Doug
1871: Germany
1873: Latin Monetary Union (Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, France)
1873: United States de facto
1875: Scandinavia by monetary Union: Denmark, Norway and Sweden
1875: Netherlands
1876: France internally
1876: Spain
1879: Austria
1897: Russia
1897: Japan
1898: India
1900: United States
interesting article
<< <i>Dates of adoption of a gold standard:
1871: Germany
1873: Latin Monetary Union (Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, France)
1873: United States de facto
1875: Scandinavia by monetary Union: Denmark, Norway and Sweden
1875: Netherlands
1876: France internally
1876: Spain
1879: Austria
1897: Russia
1897: Japan
1898: India
1900: United States
interesting article >>
here is how it should read, the last part got left off
Dates of adoption of a gold standard:
1871: Germany
1873: Latin Monetary Union (Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, France)
1873: United States de facto
1875: Scandinavia by monetary Union: Denmark, Norway and Sweden
1875: Netherlands
1876: France internally
1876: Spain
1879: Austria
1897: Russia
1897: Japan
1898: India
1900: United States, de jure.
The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in principle" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political situations. De jure is also translated as "by law" and de facto is also translated as "in practice". A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it yet there is no such law. A process known as "desuetude" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete laws. On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.
Awesome!
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>And cutting through the hocus pocus, the Bryan solution was allow the money supply to increase with virtually no limit. The idea was that those in debt would get to pay off their loans with cheaper dollars.
To be fair, one could have made a great case for increasing the money supply to an extent back then. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had drained the Federal Government’s supply of gold. Under the gold standard, that limited the amount of money that the Federal Government could place in circulation. The trouble with Bryan’s plan was that it was like turning on the printing presses and issuing an unlimited supply of money which would have resulted in massive inflation. That is the type of thing that banana republics do. In short Bryan’s free silver platform was a dangerous scheme. >>
But certainly less dangerous than the fiat money scheme we have now. At least Bryan would have retained some precious metal backing to the currency. >>
I don't think that I can win this argument, but I'll try. What you are advocating is the commodity theory of money, which states that money derives its value from the precious metal it contains or the stock of gold or silver that backs it.
Money derives its value from its purchasing power. If the dollar’s purchasing power dips below the value of the precious metal you can get from a dollar, people will convert their dollars to precious metal. If a dollar buys more than the precious metal that backs the dollar, people will use and keep their dollars. In other words, backing in precious metal cannot save a currency from a defunct economy. All the gold standard can do is limit the amount of money in circulation, which can be a good or bad thing.
Bryan was right about the “cross of gold.” The economy should not be held in irons by the amount of one commodity a nation holds. But he was wrong when he placed no limits on the amount of money that could be added to the economy. Back in the 1890s there was so much silver being mined out of the ground that it was really a “junk metal” back then. For example in 1896 the price of silver was 66.4 cents an ounce. That meant that a Morgan Dollar had 51.3 cents worth of silver in it.
Bottom line - We are FAR better off today with an expert like Alan Greenspan running the Federal Reserve than we ever were during the 19th century. >>
I hear you and mostly agree. Bryan was right to dump the gold standard and retain silver backing, but certainly wrong to advocate unlimited monetary expansion. What I don't like about our current fiat money system today is that it is way too easy to achieve unlimited monetary expansion. That's why we now have a dollar that feels more like a Mexican peso. Anyway...on to more pressing matters
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>I hear you and mostly agree. Bryan was right to dump the gold standard and retain silver backing, but certainly wrong to advocate unlimited monetary expansion. What I don't like about our current fiat money system today is that it is way too easy to achieve unlimited monetary expansion. That's why we now have a dollar that feels more like a Mexican peso. Anyway...on to more pressing matters How much does a Gorham silver go for nowadays? >>
To finish the story, additional gold production from Alaska and South Africa added to the world's stock of gold and relieved the money shortage in The United States. That was a contributing factor to the end of the depression that started in 1893 along with the usual swing in the business cycle.
As to you other comment about how it is "way to easy to achieve unlimited monetary expansion" I can only say that we are dependent upon the skill and good faith of the people who run the Federal Reserve System. Nobody wants to go down in history as a failure, even if their spot in history is minor. In 1937 the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply in the odd belief that the country was headed toward rapid inflation as it emerged from The Great Depression. It was the wrong move, and that action started another economic downturn.
During the Carter Administration many people thought that the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply too fast which contributed to the massive inflation (for the US) that marked those years. Adjusting the money supply is a tricky business, but it beats putting the economy at the mercy of how much gold there is in the government's vaults. AND of gold did have that role today, chances are we would not be able to own the lovely gold coins that the mint now issues for collectors and those want to invest in gold. We would back to the old days when it was illegal for American citizens to own gold except in limited forms.
The double eagle ties in well. It's cool to put things like that together.
WNC Coins, LLC
1987-C Hendersonville Road
Asheville, NC 28803
wnccoins.com
Here are two fairly common jugates from the 1900 race. The vice presidential candidates were interesting. Theodore Roosevelt became one of America’s most successful presidents after William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. Adlai Stevenson had served as vice president in the second Grover Cleveland administration. He was the grandfather of Adlai Stevenson who run unsuccessfully as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956.