Why did Americans in 1785-89 tolerate King George and Britannia on their States Coppers?

ambro51

It is something that befuddles me. Yes the circulating coppers of the era, both Regal and imitations, had George II and George III on them BUT--- the War was fought and most who used these coins had personal memories, lost limbs, lost relatives.... You had your new coppers STILL with the picture of that fat old hated King on them... Here we were all proud of our Liberty, but we keep this ex Ruler on our coins??? Does anyone have any insight into why they tolerated this??

7Jaguars

I recall reading that the demographics were countrywide:

1/3 for separation
1/3 loyal to crown
1/3 neutral


Also if the choice is no circulating coin or one with G3, the latter was a viable option.

Weiss

Same reasons we tolerate INGWT.

magikbilly

Hello Ambro,

I don't claim to know what the options were, but would new issues at that time have been as accepted as the established existing coinage among the merchants and people of the day or would they be thought of as perhaps something else? Could they have relished using the coins as a form of expression - using the metal in a sort of two-word protest way - using the Kings metal and image?

Eric

Treashunt

well, they didn't exactly have a vote in the matter

nor was there a choice, since the mint wasn't operational yet.

s4ny

Geroge III wasn't such a bad guy and wasn't fat either. Money is money, and British
coins met the requirements for money: store of value, medium of exchange and unit
of account.

ricko

Exactly... as s4ny mentions... the coins were currency... even as Spanish money circulated here for so long. Cheers, RickO

DCW

Not in Jersey. We preferred to put horses over kings. Some of them even faced left (away from those English kings.)
<---------------------------

ambro51

Exactly. Was for instance the NJ horse during the period mentioned in any reference relating to the King on Ct and Vt coppers?

TwoKopeiki

<< <i>Geroge III wasn't such a bad guy and wasn't fat either. >>



While he may not be considered fat by today's US standard, he was pretty hefty.

topstuf

Copper coins or continental currency? You decide which you want for those eggs.

indeetlib

<< <i>It is something that befuddles me. Yes the circulating coppers of the era, both Regal and imitations, had George II and George III on them BUT--- the War was fought and most who used these coins had personal memories, lost limbs, lost relatives.... You had your new coppers STILL with the picture of that fat old hated King on them... Here we were all proud of our Liberty, but we keep this ex Ruler on our coins??? Does anyone have any insight into why they tolerated this?? >>



It's a good question, one that I've wondered about before. First, I think it's important that in the legislation allowing for the various state coinages,(Vermont and Connecticut would be most pertinent here) the only requirement for the design was a generic effigy on the obverse and a seated figure on the reverse. Clearly, the dies were modeled after Geo II and Geo III halfpennies, but technically, the bust is not a representation of the king and the seated figure is not Britannia. The reason for the similarity in design was probably a utilitarian one - allowing for an easier acceptance into commerce since the British halfpenny was a familiar coin. Aside from this, I like to think that the choice of the design and legends on CT and VT coppers was also a sort of mockery of the crown, the coins' legends replacing the king's authority with the authority of the U.S. state and replacing Britannia motto with "Independence and Liberty."

SaorAlba

He was a familiar image - even if disliked.

keyman64

Interesting thread. I liked the "Same reason we tolerate IGWT" response best. The fact that separation of church and state is ignored for our coinage disturbs me. Money is money and we don't have many choices in the matter.

19Lyds

Simple.

People don't care WHAT their money looks like as long as it spends!

DDR

I once lived in a country that overthrew its ruler in a coup d'état. The ruler's face was all over the money years after the coup. Nobody cared. It was more important just to have money to buy the necessities of the life.

ormandh

<< <i>Simple.

People don't care WHAT their money looks like as long as it spends! >>



Exactly! There was no room for politics, at the time, when circulating coinage was all that mattered. If a lump of sh** circulated as currency at the time, there would be no qualms about using it.

-Dan

okracer

Interesting!......makes me wonder why there wasn't more grafitti on those coins, on the king's face, done in protest.....

WillieBoyd2

I suppose that Ireland and India had the same problem after independence.

BryceM

Like others have said,

1) There wasn't much option. Scarcity of coinage was a profound problem of the era.
2) Modern Americans vastly overestimate the degree to which the average colonist was ready to go to battle against the motherland. A huge part of the country was loyalist before, during, and after the war.
3) Today, the "evil empires" of the world have a particular fondness for US currency. Stories of what was found in Sadam's palaces are legend.

SaorAlba

<< <i> Stories of what was found in Sadam's palaces are legend. >>



There was a news story datelined in Moscow last week about a shipment of currency in crates that was reputed to be about $30 billion that the article surmised could be some of the missing money that went to Iraq during the US occupation of the place.

Justacommeman

trust me they had more important things to worry about at the time................MJ

renman95

<< <i>I once lived in a country that overthrew its ruler in a coup d'état. The ruler's face was all over the money years after the coup. Nobody cared. It was more important just to have money to buy the necessities of the life. >>



Zactly, China has Mao all over their bills. The peeps don't care he "purged" 60 million, actually they don't know. Either way In Mao They Trust it seems.

BillJones

<< <i>Interesting!......makes me wonder why there wasn't more grafitti on those coins, on the king's face, done in protest..... >>



Perhaps because if you defaced it, you might have had a harder time spending it. What was true during this period was that if it was round, brown, looked like it was worn which indicated that someone else had accepted it, AND it had a head on that was at least somewhat like the king's portrait, you stood a better chance of passing it. The words or misspellings did not matter since most people could not read. These are the reasons why Machain's Mills and other lesser known counterfeiters used designs that resembled the British coppers. It also explains why the Connecticut and Nova Eborac coppers looked the way they did.

magikbilly

<< <i>Simple.

People don't care WHAT their money looks like as long as it spends! >>




That can be seen today today IMHO. In this case I disagree with Mustapha Monde. History IS pleasant.

Eric

Justlooking

Some of the worst presidents in history are on the Presidential Dollars, but when I want a pop at work, I don't check to see whose face is on the coin.