x
JCH22
Posts: 355 ✭✭✭✭
.
8
JCH22
Posts: 355 ✭✭✭✭
JCH22
Posts: 355 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
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 asked:
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.
Some of the arguments, both for and against the Mint, seem to be lacking in facts.
This smacks of exaggeration, and probably cherrypicking of data?
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.
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...
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
.