The historical/cultural reasons for the changeovers in coin designs?
logger7
Posts: 10,003 ✭✭✭✭✭
Possibly someone with significant grounding in US history could clarify the reasons for the major changeovers in US coinage. Some of the earliest US coins produced in the colonies were the pine tree copper and silver coins. Foreign coins such as the reales circulated freely. When we get to the Revolutionary era and the aftermath the flowing hair design became the one adopted. That gave way to the "Bust" designs. A new era started in the late 1830s with the "Seated" designs. Then the Barber and Morgan designs started in 1878.
Were the reasons for the changeovers more practical than cultural? Was there a sense that the old coinage had become obsolete with the major economic, commercial and industrial drivers? Did most people in the population take notice of or participate in these changes?
Comments
Sounds like a good idea for a book!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
As I recall, some people interpreted the 30 year rule as a mandate. In general, until the the Lincoln cent and excepting 2, 3 and 5 cent pieces, all the designs are effectively variations on the same theme: Liberty. Sometimes it was a bust, sometimes she was sitting, sometimes she was in Native American garb. But it's basically over a century of Liberty mixed with eagles and wreaths.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Coin designs were sometimes changed as a deterrent or impediment to counterfeiting.
This New York Times article was published 13 March 1898.
In regards to "new device", that is equivalent to "new design".
But where are the 1898 pattern coins with “new devices”?
I guess $2 million worth of bogus Morgans was no big deal….
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Many changes were attempts to make coin designs more attractive and "modern." Others were made to improve manufacture (rays removed from shield nickels), attempts to adapt to metric standards as in the 1883 five cent coin, or in response to public complaints - larger diameter gold dollars for example. Some were legislative such as mid-1830s gold changes, and yet others were a response to technological improvements including use of closed collars in the late 1820s and Peale's toggle press of 1835/36.
Does the OP have a specific coin design in mind?
.
Well, Congress was pretty slow.
Instead, minting of silver dollars was ended in 1904.
The 1921 Morgan Dollars had design differences from prior coins.
And then the new Peace Dollars came out in late 1921.
.
In a recent article in FUN Topics, W. R. Julian presented that idea that the switch from the Draped Bust designs to the Capped Bust of John Reich was a reflection of the passing of the influence of the elegant Federalist Party, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton to the working man's Democratic - Republican Party led by Jefferson and Madison.
The Liberty Seated design had its roots in the seated Britania figure which had appeared on British coins for many years.
Thanks a lot for your insights.
I was thinking more in terms of eras in US history and the drivers for the changes. As some pointed out "liberty" was the core theme. We had "in God we trust" and similar mottos employed from 1866 on with some controversy. The Roman and Greek revival themes became stronger I assume with the Barber coinage and on. Those were aesthetic or art-based evolutions or changes I'd think.
The core theme was the concept of "liberty" embodied in a figure of the Goddess "Liberty" and in complete rejection of the common authority of any individual civil or divine. The same was not followed on paper currency where historical figures or social commentary scenes prevailed.
I wonder if the Barber subsidiary silver designs weren't both the final gasp of imitation Greek revival, and the parsimonious attitude of Treasury officers in refusing appropriate remuneration to our country's best artists in 1887 and 1891 attempts to improve coin designs?
In contemporary art, a female with flowing hair was a "girl" or unmarried woman; confined or coiffed hair was reserved for married women. This was a practice and not a requirement.
. > @BillJones said:
.....
Bill: Thought Julian's article here a good read. (https://www.numismaticnews.net/collecting-101/the-capped-bust-half-dollar-1807-1836). Not sure if he wrote something else, already covering below--if so, apologize if cumulative, Additional backstory factoid .....
William Duane was a fiercely pro Jeffersonian, and editor of the Philadelphia Aurora.
On May 1, 1801, Duane wrote a letter to the newly inaugurated Jefferson, critiquing the prior administration’s coinage design decisions.
He noted that the "cap of liberty"—a traditional symbol of emancipation featured on early cents—had been omitted from recent coin designs. Duane viewed this removal as a poor aesthetic choice, characterizing it as part of a series of "innovations of a tendency correspondent with the views of certain weak men made during the last administration".
Duane's letter introduced Jefferson to John Reich, a skilled German die-sinker and political refugee who had arrived in Philadelphia under a contract of indentured servitude., Duane suggested the administration employ Reich to rescue him from the "unfitness of his condition". Duane maintained that Reich's talents would elevate the aesthetic quality of American currency while providing a livelihood for an immigrant artisan.
This recommendation led to Reich later release from his indenture and official appointment as Assistant Engraver of the Mint in 1807. The Capped Bust series restored the liberty cap motif to circulating American coinage
Letter from William Duane to Thomas Jefferson (May 10, 1801), in 34 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 71 (James P. McClure & J. Jefferson Looney eds., 2008).
The Numismatist article 10-2022 by Bill Eckberg "The Politics Behind Early U.S. Coins" illustrates how coinage design change is never divorced from politics. Examples: Political evidence of removing the Liberty Cap to the Flowing Hair design, the change from Flowing Hair to Draped Bust, and the change from the Small Eagle to the Heraldic Eagle reverse. The Heraldic Eagle change, with arrows pointed in a wartime direction, was from the Quasi-War and carried through the First Barbary War, which formally ended in 1806. In 1807 the arrow direction of the Motto Over Eagle reverse changed the arrow direction.
Nysoto et al ---- This exchange of letters between Samuel Moore and Thomas Jefferson might be of interest.
Mint of the United States
Philadelphia
February 14, 1825
Thomas Jefferson, Esq.
Monticello
Sir:
It is not without hesitation and reluctance that I prefer a request, which will be the occasion of any inconvenience to one who has acquired so high a claim to be exempted from intrusion; but I know not to whom I can address myself with the hope of obtaining information so accurate, as you, I doubt not, possess, on a subject to which I now respectfully solicit your attention.
The character of the impression, emblematic of Liberty, on our coins, does not appear, from any record I have seen, to have been determined by specific instructions from the government; not [sic: neither] has it been settled by any uniform practice here. The journals of the Senate and other notices of the proceedings of Congress, show that, the head of the President was at first intended as the device for one side of the coins; and that the House of Representatives substituted the words now in the law. But neither the journals, not the brief notices which the papers contain of the debates of that period, give any indication of the precise emblem intended.
The first coins struck, were cents, in 1793, on which the emblem adopted was a female head, with hair wildly flying behind. In 1795 the Cap of Liberty was introduced, supported on a wand projecting behind the head. In 1796 or ‘97 the Cap was discontinued, and has not since been restored.
In 1794 the first Silver Coins were struck. The head of Liberty was here also adopted, with flowing hair, and without the accompaniment of a cap. This style was retained on the Silver Coins, with slight modifications, until about the year 1808, when Mr. Patterson procured a more pleasing head of Liberty, and ornamented it with a dress; not intended, as I can learn from the Officers of the Mint, to represent the Cap of Liberty, nor approaching it in form, but taken from life; and considered a model, in good taste, of the fashion of the time. The inscription of the word Liberty, was, ay the same period, transferred from the margin of the coin to the band of the cap. This head dress continues to the present day on the Silver Coins since issued, but has never been adopted on the dollar, none having been struck, nor any new dies of that denomination made since 1805 [sic].
The first Gold Coins were struck in 1795. The head on them was from the first ornamented with a cap head dress, not the Liberty Cap in form, but probably one corresponding to the fashionable dress of the day. This continued ‘till 1808, when the head dress of the Gold Coins was conformed to that of the Silver. No Eagles have been struck since 1804. The improved head dress has not therefore been extended to them.
No Cap has at any time been admitted on the head of the Copper Coins; but about the time of the above improvements, the hair was gathered into neat order and the band of Liberty was adopted.
I have recited the above detail of facts, familiar, probably, to your notice at the time; if not, in some instances emanating from your authority; in order to lessen the trouble of recalling the train of them to your recollection.
It seems expedient, if indeed there is no an official obligation, to complete the series of our dies; and the unsettled question – “What is the proper emblem of Liberty for our Coins?” is entitled to consideration before a new original die of our money unit if prepared. Permit me therefore to request information on the following points, as having a fair relation to the subject.
Such information or suggestions as you may find it convenient to favor me with, will be thankfully received. When I am satisfied as to the impression emblematic of Liberty which can be sustained on the best ground, a few pattern pieces will be struck, to be submitted to the consideration of the Government, which if approved, or with such modifications as shall be directed, may fix the character of our Coins.
Supposing the female head to be an appropriate figure, three views in relation to it present themselves. To adhere to the present dress cap, or copy it so nearly as to exhibit the appearance of any specific change. To exclude the cap, and adopt an easy disposition of the hair, with no ornament but the band of Liberty. To adopt the classic style of cap, which though resembling the cap of Liberty nearly in form, would nevertheless be distinguished from it, by being worn on the head of the figure, if it be true that the cap of Liberty is out of place there.
The first would be the easiest, being a style familiar to the engraver of the Mint. The second, if happily executed, would perhaps be the most pleasing, as being more true to life and nature. The third has the advantage of a permanent standard in the exquisite models of art derived from classic times.
I am with great respect,
Your obedient servant,
Samuel Moore, Director
[NARA RG104 E-162 Letter Books 1796-1837. 148-150]
Monticello
March 3, 1825.
Doctor Samuel Moore,
Sir:
My memory is so entirely in default that I do not remember a single circumstance respecting the duties on our coins except that some one having proposed to put Genl. Washington’s head on them it was entirely objected to, and the head of Liberty adopted; but whether with or without the pileus I do not remember; but surely it ought to be without it, for we are not emancipated slaves.
I have delayed answering your letter until I could examine my papers, but I find not a sign there relating to it. With my regret that I can give you no information on the subject of your letter of Feb 14 except the assurance of my great esteem & respect.
/s/ Th: J. [Thomas Jefferson]
[Library of Congress. Jefferson Papers #40879]
Friction between artistic schools has also been a driver, A prominent example is the Morgan Dollar.
In the late 19th century, this friction came to a head with the clash of two opposing design philosophies: the entrenched European Neo-Classicism favored by the U.S. Mint establishment and the emerging American Realism movement centered in the Philadelphia art community. This specific clash arose because Linderman wanted to update U.S. currency, which he felt lacked artistic value under William Barber. To bring in fresh artistic ideas, Linderman bypassed his own engraving department in 1876, hiring English engraver George T. Morgan and enrolling him at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (PAFA). Influenced by realist painter Thomas Eakins, Morgan broke from the Mint’s standard practice of using generic, Greek and Roman goddess profiles. Instead, he used a living model— according to then circulating stories, of a local schoolteacher named Anna Willess Williams—to create a design that combined classical geometric shapes with a “real American face.”
Peter Clericuzio, George Morgan, the Philadelphia Art Community, and the Redesign of the Silver Dollar, c. 1876–82, 27 Athanor 7, 7–9 (2009).
While Morgan's realist design was ultimately chosen, its adoption faced strong resistance inside the Mint and divided public opinion. Chief Engraver Barber viewed Morgan’s hiring as a threat to his authority and blocked him from using the main engraving rooms at the Philadelphia Mint, forcing Morgan to finish his coin designs in a separate, privately rented room down the street. When the coin was released to the public in 1878, reactions split along artistic lines. Traditional art critics disliked the new look, complaining that the profile looked too heavy and lacked classical beauty. At the same time, local newspapers caused a stir by claiming a real woman had modeled for the coin. In the late 19th century, social norms saw the use of a living women on a coin unseemly.
Clericuzio, supra note 1, at 10–13.
Good read!
As the French Revolution descended into the Reign of Terror, the bonnet rouge became controversial in some conservative American political circles because of its association with Jacobin radicalism. Consequently, it is thought the U.S. Mint transitioned away from the overt "cap-on-a-pole" motif toward "Draped Bust" and "Turban Head" designs where the cap was either modified into a tight-fitting headdress or omitted entirely.
As Nyosoto pointed out, the Federalists were Francophobes as demonstrated by the Quasi War (and earlier support of the Jay Treaty with Britain). Jefferson was a Francophile , present in Paris when the revolution kicked off (but before the Reign of Terror). It could be argued he was more receptive to French iconography, but that is an inference.
The floor debate and in the Senate over the coinage Act of 1792 resulted only in the following stipulation re the depiction of Liberty:
SEC. 10. And be it further enacted... [upon the coins] there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty... and upon the reverse... the figure or representation of an eagle, with this inscription, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” [or for copper coins, an inscription expressing the denomination].
Coinage Act of 1792, ch. 16, § 10, 1 Stat. 246, 248 (1792)
According to mint director Linderman, Morgan's dollar design was ultimately chosen because the relief was lower than W Barber's. Engraving Dept space was tight and there were three working there: the Engraver (W Barber) and two assistants, C Barber and W Key. Morgan worked from his own rented rooms at Eckfeldt's, not from a separate rented location. We do not know why Linderman rejected W Barber's much lighter and modern "ideal head of Liberty" (Judd 1457) that was artistically superior to either Barber or Morgan's final version.
Correspondence indicates neither finalist design was liked once it was in production. (1877-date patterns in silver (cost = $1 each) and copper (cost = $0) were widely distributed within the Hayes administration and Bland-Allison Act supporters.)
[Copyright 2019, 2026 Seneca Mill Press LLC and Roger W Burdette. All rights reserved.]
As for the Liberty portrait, Morgan's version was brought with him from England in 1876. Anna ("Nannie") Williams modeled for painter Thomas Eakins and Morgan, and there are sketches of Anna in Morgan's notebooks, and a portrait by Eakins and his future wife. (See my book Girl on the Silver Dollar for extensive research information.)
....
The relief justification is a good point to raise regarding the ultimate design selection.
While Barber blamed everything but his own relief for the copper trial failures, the immediate production issues with Morgan's 1878 reverse (opposing high points) show that relief wasn't the simple technical fix Linderman claimed.
More importantly, Linderman deliberately steering Morgan toward PAFA and American Realism signals a rather calculated pivot away from Barber’s Neo-Classicism.
Official Mint documents routinely sanitize institutional politics (and many other things). Citing "lower relief" could be bureaucratic cover, allowing Linderman to reject Barber’s style without placing an explicit critique of the Chief Engraver's abilities into an official record, or not.
Whatever the ultimate reason for the design selection, there was a clear societal movement away from the neoclassical school, as evidenced by Morgan's employment and schooling. The OP asked about cultural drivers, hence my post.
Linderman's letters and documents are internal, not for external use.
RE: "Official Mint documents routinely sanitize institutional politics (and many other things). Citing "lower relief" could be bureaucratic cover, allowing Linderman to reject Barber’s style without placing an explicit critique of the Chief Engraver's abilities into an official record, or not."
This has been conclusively shown to be a false assumption, likely taken from public press releases and statements commonly made from intentionally obscure or contradictory remarks. It was widely promoted by Wally Breen and then retold by Dave Bowers - but never tested for accuracy. Internal documents from archival sources are entirely different. Linderman felt W Barber was lazy and bordered on incompetent; citing dies shipped w/o dates to SF, bungled 1877 DE hubs, poor department management including die delays, among others. Linderman actively solicited the Royal Mint for an engraver, and Morgan got the primary endorsement. To give Morgan some measure of authority (and because he could do nothing about W Barber as a presidential appointee), he made him a direct employee of the Director of the Mint with the title of "Special Engraver" reporting to Linderman and only indirectly to Pollock. Read the book I mentioned to get up to speed.
Linderman was clear that there was no mint or Hayes administration design preference. It was also clear that Morgan brought the Liberty portrait with him from England. (After the first coins had been released, and Morgan's wife came to Philadelphia, some newspapers claimed the coin portrait looked like her.)
Roger, thank you for the structural detail on the presidential appointment.
However, the fact that Linderman hired Morgan as a "Special Engraver" two years earlier in 1876 completely reframes this timeline. He didn't recruit Morgan as a panicked reaction to the 1878 coining crisis; he systematically engineered an administrative loophole years in advance to structurally bypass an entrenched rival he could not legally fire. Citing logistical failures as objective proof of Barber's "incompetence" assumes Linderman's internal complaints were neutral performance reviews, rather than a calculated political case to marginalize a competitor.
Furthermore, dismissing my argument by labeling it "Wally Breen lore" reveals a significant flaw in your historical methodology. It assumes any analysis of systemic, cultural motives and macro sources is just derivative hobby folklore. Perhaps because you approach history from a strict archivist perspective, you treat the literal text of bureaucratic records as an absolute reflection of objective reality, which is a major analytical blind spot that completely misses how institutional power operates. My posting were centered on the macro-cultural drivers, peer-reviewed art history, and institutional critiques that explain the broader ideological movements of the era, entirely separate from old numismatic storytelling. I am not a student of Walter Breen, and linking my academic arguments to a creature like Breen—given his deeply disturbing history—is frankly disquieting and uncalled for.
Your insistence that Morgan’s design model simply "pre-existed in England" is similarly contradicted by the material evidence. The primary records held within the Archives of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (PAFA) explicitly document Morgan’s detailed sketches of Philadelphia schoolteacher Anna Willess Williams from their intensive modeling sessions in November 1876. These sketches undermine the idea of a pre-packaged European import; they prove that the face of Liberty was deliberately redefined on American soil using a living, local realist model. Linderman sought out a realist artist two years before the silver dollar debate even began, weaponizing Barber's real-world missteps to navigate around a presidential appointment and drive a broader cultural agenda.
Your argument is dismissed because it is not backed by reality. Public press releases, especially from the Mint and those relating to non-policy situations are, as you've correctly stated, are often superficial, untrustworthy, inaccurate and self-serving. Many seek to obscure events or misrepresent situations. Coin collectors are more sensitive to this deception because they possess more extensive information to the general public. Collectors also are more likely to ask probing questions that never occur to general media reporters. The Breen and other assumptions are historically based on these public announcements, and were never examined or researched beyond the superficial: the "experts" merely copied from each other. My articles and books are built on the internal communications of Mint Bureau and Treasury functionaries as they communicated with one another about a situation. I'll cite only one example and you can research others on your own. Press releases relating to 1964-D silver dollars state that all were destroyed and present a specific quantity - no details, just a "take-it-or-leave-it conclusion. Similar superficial testimony was given to Congress but with more words and a few unsupported details. However, the internal documents show that the Denver Mint never did a physical count, never allowed for loss in melting coins and planchets, failed to make a rigorous assessment of ordinary losses and overall did a poor job of covering what occurred. All of these data are available, analyzed and cited in my Peace Dollar book. Are they "immutable and perfectly objective?" No; but they are the closest we have to voices of the participants. Yet, these are the very kinds of research sources that you condemn as false under the illogical and superficial assumptions you present as "fact" when they are merely misinformed belief.
Your comments immediately above are distorted and ill informed. It's evident you lack the breadth and depth of research to have a clear and convincing understanding of the situation. George Morgan's Liberty profile models which became the dollar coin obverse were prepared in England and brought with him on his journey to Philadelphia. They preexist Morgan's attendance at Art Student's League or association with Thomas Eakins. Morgan did not, according to records I've seen, frequent the classes - he was too busy doing Linderman's bidding, and trying to work with W Barber and Pollock in a hostile environment. They do not resemble any of his sketches, just as Anna Williams bears equally faint resemblance to the dollar portrait. (Some of the sketches appear to have influenced later Liberty portraits and that has been confirmed with experts from the National Gallery of Art and other astute professionals. This is, however, a matter of learned judgement - we have found, so far, nothing explicit on this in Morgan's papers, or letters from others among his sphere of contacts.
(It might be of interest that to quell the engraving conflicts, Linderman threatened to sent Charles Barber to San Francisco to harden dies unless Philadelphia conditions improved.)
RE "However, the fact that Linderman hired Morgan as a "Special Engraver" two years earlier in 1876 completely reframes this timeline. He didn't recruit Morgan as a panicked reaction to the 1878 coining crisis; he systematically engineered an administrative loophole years in advance to structurally bypass an entrenched rival he could not legally fire. Citing logistical failures as objective proof of Barber's "incompetence" assumes Linderman's internal complaints were neutral performance reviews, rather than a calculated political case to marginalize a competitor."
I appreciate your comments on the situation. It was, however, a bit more subtle than you suppose. This is understandable given the depth of research required...it takes time. -- Linderman was a primary architect of the Coinage Act of 1873 and it is his reorganization that was implemented in the law. He did not retain the "Standard Silver Dollar" because it functioned outside the routine of US coinage denominations under the old laws. He also knew that its loss would infuriate western silver interests, and sought to improve US silver interests by including and then pushing for quick implementation of the Trade dollar as a way to use more silver than the old Standard Silver Dollar every had. His plan was thrown off because of an amendment that gave Trade dollars a domestic legal tender value of $5 --- What that which was supplied to be solely a foreign trade token became an actual coin.
Linderman realized that economic conditions and greed by some who had bullion converted into legal tender Trade dollars would eventually force return of Standard Silver Dollars. For his own aesthetic satisfaction, the began a quest for an "Ideal head of Liberty" for this new dollar coin. He reached out to the Deputy Master of the Royal Mint, Charles Fremantle and to the Wyon family for designs or artists capable of producing this ideal design. After multiple letters, Fremantle endorsed Morgan and Morgan accepted the job on a 6-month provisional contract. The portrait models Morgan brought to America were his confirmation of sincere interest and samples.
I suggest you send me a PM if you'd like to discuss further. I'm always searching for inquisitive people, fresh ideas, and those with interest in discovering American numismatic information.
Roger, while I appreciate the open invitation, I must firmly decline the offer to take this to a PM so you can "teach" me the ropes. The patronizing suggestion that I simply need to get up to speed by reviewing your personal research files or reading your specific books assumes a student-teacher dynamic that does not exist here. My academic training and professional experience are such that I do not require a tutor to understand how to parse historical evidence or weigh competing sources. My divergence from your conclusions is not due to a lack of empirical data, but rather a fundamental disagreement with the absolutism of your conclusions, which are grounded solely on Mint archives rather than the broader socio-cultural contexts that drove coin design.
At this juncture, continuing to debate the microhistory of internal administrative timelines or the literal wording of Linderman's private memos feels entirely futile. My simple, core point was that the Gilded Age brought a clear societal shift toward the school of American Realism—a broader cultural shift that heavily influenced Morgan's artistic choices. Instead of addressing that broader point, you have taken us down a detailed detour far beyond the scope of this thread's expansively framed macro topic.
Your literal reliance on Linderman’s characterization of William Barber as "lazy" or "incompetent," or your insistence that a preliminary sketch in Morgan’s English portfolio dictates the entire design, perfectly illustrates the analytical blind spot of pure archival positivism. You treat internal memos written by political actors as pure fact, rather than potential political cover. To argue in such a conclusory fashion that Morgan's documented, intensive attendance at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts didn't matter simply treats him like a delivery boy bringing a pre-made design from England. I will readily grant that you are an excellent, deeply knowledgeable mint archivist; however, rigorous historiography requires much more than simply relying on a single, isolated archival source (Mint archives) to explain complex issues related to coinage.
Because you treat the literal text of bureaucratic records as an absolute reflection of objective reality, any analysis of macro-cultural drivers, peer-reviewed art history, or institutional power dynamics shaping coin design will simply be dismissed by you as "ill-informed belief." Ultimately, this is the classic clash between a narrow empirical positivism (archivist) and macro-level contextual historiography.
The severe limits of this strict archival approach were tested in Langbord, without success. Having read the entire transcripts of the experts testimony in that litigation, it was clear the limits of empirical positivism (archivist) failed to withstand the rigors of cross-examination. Perhaps that was the actual lesson of the case: the archives capture the rules,; they rarely capture the exceptions.
By adopting the pretense that you are reviewing my credentials rather than participating in an peer level historical debate, it is clear we have reached an impasse. I have no interest in being subjected to an academic gatekeeping exercise, nor do I intend to let you grade my historical methodology against your rubric. Since our opposing schools of historical inquiry are so fundamentally incompatible, I am moving on from this discussion and will leave the thread to you.
Does anyone want to chime in on the later coin changeovers? We went from largely feminine and allegorical artistic designs with the Morgan, Barber, Mercury, Standing Liberty designs to the presidential motifs with the Washington commemorative design which became a workhorse of coinage starting in 1932. The Roosevelt and Franklin designs followed. Was the shift from the allegorical to American greats based on something of a change culturally? Did the US commemorative silver starting in 1892 with Columbus provide an impetus for this change? Also virtually no other country puts "In God We Trust" on their money which many considered sacrilegious when it was first done in 1866. Since we have no religious test in our Constitution one has to wonder why the promotion of this motto?
I'm glad @Rogerb et al got this covered because I could write 50 incoherent pages and cover much less ground.
Many coins used to be allowed to wear down to a stump and could offer an unflattering depiction of the monarch. This could spur coin redesign as well. What individuals do is highly complex, what groups do can be beyond deciphering yet somehow countries often seen to end up with the exact coins and designs they deserve.
Washington was a workhorse because it's the largest fraction of a dollar that actually circulated especially after 1964, Back when candy bars were a nickel the buffalo wore thin but purchases over 80c usually were made with paper and then quarters were returned. In 1909 the US government began instituting individuals who shaped the country as representations of the country and and how it operated in the 20th century. In 1963 the last non-president was kicked off the coinage despite the fact he more represented the aspirations and perspective of Americans in 1776 than virtually any other individual. He was a hard worker, scientist, innovator, and statesman and such concepts and liberty took a backseat to the day to day operations that came to represent us.
What works persists but civilizations don't so much change as they "evolve".
Coins have been a remarkable representation of the beliefs of nations for only 2500 years. I believe there was once a time when people had no coins and carved their ideas into the earth and constructed them into models. There's nothing new under the sun. The date wears off you just reduce its height on the coin. We respond far more than we participate or anticipate.
After the Civil War it was almost appropriate for the length of time the 2c pc was used as the schisms of the war closed. But I certainly agree it is sacrilegious and it hides the disparity between the many religious and secular believes held by Americans and everyone else. Even if we all shared the exact same beliefs it is still presumptuous and errors result in things like "In God We Rust" and worse. Things like trusting a Deity are individually defined.
It is compelling to think that the shift to commemorative themes in the 20th century was suggested by the Columbian half. It was widely circulated - I found them In circulation 50+ years later. Once accepted by the public, legislators may have felt free.to use circulating coins to express their patriotism by commemorating early leaders and fallen presidents.
PS. Philatelists may want to comment as well concerning the modern era.
The motto idea appears to be entirely from Pollock's personal beliefs. Sec of Treasury said it was OK and then commented on the versions. (Per NARA original documents and letters, plus diaries by members of Watkinson's church in Virginia before he moved to PA.) Congress approved the idea as one of several means of asserting divine approval for the war. Both sides claimed George Washington's heritage, and the Confederacy invented war-time and post conflict tall tales about economic suppression. (Most cotton, rice, indigo etc. was exported through southern ports on British and plantation-owned ships. Payments came into southern and northern banks to pay southern loan balances and for imported luxuries. This trade pre-dated the Revolutionary War.)
What I dislike in general is how the Barber's are universally portrayed as villains when they really weren't.
Peer discussions are useful. You seem to simply be copying from whatever on-line material you can find. I'll be glad to help you, once you demonstrate you have any meaningful credential beyond "Ctrl-C; Ctrl-V."
olympicsos --
RE: "What I dislike in general is how the Barber's are universally portrayed as villains when they really weren't."
I agree with you. Dave Bowers commented to me during a casual conversation that it was Wally Breen who villainized Charles Barber (and possibly William Barber, by extension). That seems consistent with Breen's published comments and one can see multiple sides to that assessment. Records in NARA from Linderman and some of the mint superintendents about William Barber contain repeated complaints about dies, defects, delayed shipments, missing design parts from working dies, master die & hub defects and especially Linderman's persistent irritation at relief problems. Yet, as with the dollar design posted above, and some others, he was capable of high quality work (see the Smithsonian Joseph Henry medal obverse). The Charles Barber vs Saint-Gaudens disagreements are more focused: neither man seemed to have appropriate respect for the skills and technical knowledge of the other. Saint-Gaudens held little regard for "coin relief", viewing it as a mostly 'mechanical process easily practiced by Parisian artisans in their little shops.' But SG never seemed to grasp the fundamental difficulties encountered when millions of coins had to be struck for commerce with one blow from a toggle press at only about 100 tons. Barber, appeared to think about nothing else and frequently produced ordinary workman-like medals of routine quality; and the occasional unexpectedly expressive design such as the Art Nouveau PPIE coins. (I mentioned elsewhere the awful Lewis & Clark commem dollars, which looked like cheap jewelry.)
Neither artist cared to adjust to the prevailing conditions, and it became easy for Breen (often imitating Homer Saint-Gaudens' magazine article slant) to impress his acolytes by condemning Barber as blocking every attempt to improve the artistic quality of American Coinage. Breen did the same with Buffalo nickels, the Weinman dime and half - it was always Barber being a deliberate obstructionist. Fortunately, the American numismatic community has (I hope) accepted a more nuanced approach and placed Breen's opinions where they belong accompanying his falsified data and incomplete research.