Talk:Gold standard

Dates of adoption of a gold standard

• 1704: The British West Indies 'de facto' following Queen Anne's proclamation.
• 1717: Kingdom of Great Britain 'de facto' following Isaac Newton's revision of the mint ratio, at 1 guinea to 129.438 grains (8.38 g) of 22 carat crown gold .
• 1818: Netherlands at 1 guilder to 0.60561 g gold.
• 1821: United Kingdom 'de jure' at one sovereign to 123.27447 grains of 22 carat crown gold.
• 1853: Canada in conjunction with the American Gold Eagle coin equal to ten US dollars and also the British gold sovereign equal to four dollars eighty-six and two thirds cents. The Canadian unit was made equal to the American unit in the year 1858.
• 1854: Portugal at 1000 réis to 1.62585 g gold.
• 1863: Free Hanseatic City of Bremen at 1 Bremen thaler to 1.19047 g gold; the only state within the German Confederacy to introduce the gold standard before the introduction of the 1873 mark.
• 1865: Newfoundland The only country in the British Empire to introduce its own gold coin apart from the British gold sovereign. The Newfoundland gold dollar was equal to the Spanish dollar unit that was being used in the British Eastern Caribbean Territories and in British Guiana.
• 1873: German Empire at 2790 Marks (ℳ) to 1 kg gold.
• 1873: United States 'de facto' at 20.67 dollars to 1 troy oz (31.1 g) gold. (See Coinage Act of 1873).
• 1873: Latin Monetary Union (Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, France) at 31 francs to 9.0 g gold
• 1875: Scandinavian monetary union: (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) at 2480 kroner to 1 kg gold.
• 1876: France internally.
• 1876: Spain at 31 pesetas to 9.0 g gold.
• 1878: Grand Duchy of Finland at 31 marks to 9.0 g gold.
• 1879: Austrian Empire (see Austrian florin and Austrian crown).
• 1881: Argentina at 1 peso to 1.4516 g gold.
• 1885: Egypt.
• 1897: Russia at 31 roubles to 24.0 g gold.
• 1897: Japan at 1 yen devalued to 0.75 g gold.
• 1898: India (see Indian rupee).
• 1900: United States de jure (see Gold Standard Act).
• 1903: The Philippines Gold Exchange/US dollar.
• 1906: The Straits Settlements Gold Exchange/pound sterling.
• 1908: Siam Gold Exchange/pound sterling.

|}

Disadvantages

Came back to see if artilce was still protected and yup, its still protected. Since I can't change anything I will point out a few defects in the ddisadvantages section.

On limited supply of gold - the amount of gold per person is about the same as 100 years ago under the gold standard. The supply of gold is no obstacle to a gold standard. The article comment that the limited supply of gold would limit its use under a gold standard is stupid. A gold standard requires the use of gold so how can it limit its use? Retarded!

Higher real interest rates under a gold standard as a disadvantage is also stupid. First there are more savers then debtors, so higher interest rates help more people. That's a benefit. The net interest is a wash - one outgo is another's income. That's a wash. In general debt is considered WAY worse then saving so anything that encourages savings is a net social plus. See all the debt crisis all over the world today caused by excessive debt. There is no crisis anywhere that has even been caused by excessive savings.

Anything that monkeys with a free market causes distortions reducing overall economic growth. Fiat is all about distorting the economy for the gain of a few, the bankers and governments.

Monetary policy is not determined by gold production. Under a gold standard there is no monetary policy to distort the economy and deduce overall growth.

Short run price instability is bogus. No claim has been made by the author or anyone else that the gold standard caused that price instability.

The only time the gold standard can be speculatively attacked is when claim on gold are greater then the supply of gold. That is not an issue under a 100% gold standard since every paper claim is backed 100%. It is only a probled under a partial gold standard when gold claims are not covered by gold on hand.

Under a gold standard a country by definition CAN'T devalue its currency. An ounce of gold will always be an ounce of gold. The gold standard is used specifically because gold money can't be devalued.

Most economists don't have two brain cells to rub together. Screwing with the free market reduces overall economic growth.

Central banks have caused every major financial disaster of the past 100 years. Putting shackles on the ability of a central bank to take any kind of action is a GOOD thing.71.184.188.254 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

-You have a good point. The description of limited gold for currency should refer to there being less than 200 grams of extracted gold per person on the earth to serve as currency. That is one very small coin for each person. And that is only after we stop using gold in electronics, industry , dentistry, jewelry and historical artifacts. Frankly I suspect that an attempt to return to the gold standard would see a barter economy instead, since "true" gold standard believers would see gold as too valuable to be used in ordinary business transactions.

-Obviously the article is ambiguous since they meant a monetary policy as to what percentage of national currency is backed by gold. So actually you are referring to a 100% gold coinage standard when you say no monetary policy. In any case you have not cited a practical 100% gold coinage system (sizes/weights/denominations) for a real fully industrialized nation and the weight of gold required. Until you do most of us will think you have no idea of the mass of gold required and that you just assume on faith alone that a solution exists. Or maybe I misjudge your intelligence and ethics, I have met more practical Libertarians who are simply too polite to publicly say that their ideas include returning to 1830s level populations and industrial technology -- thus greatly reducing the amount of gold required.

-Actually gold or silver is famous for all the economic instability before the introduction of paper money. Its called panic and speculative gold hoarding. Under gold currency the first hint of economic goods failing results in everyone "burying" their coinage if they can afford -- resulting in a sudden crash as regional business slams to a stop due to lack of coins flowing in the markets. Later under partial gold reserves a slightly delayed form of this resulted in bank runs and when enough banks collapsed again a dramatic economic slow down.

-Gold coins are easy to devalue if actually placed into circulation. In fact devaluation is commonly not limited to government action but includes most private citizens. How? 100% gold coins are terrible coins because they are soft, bendable, and easily filed down. Because they do not hold shape well, its fairly easy to mix in a little base metal and recast forgeries - or recast with base metal slugs in the middle. You can make gold and silver coins resistant to casual civilian devaluation by hardening them with special alloy mixtures. But then the coins are not 100% gold or silver which bothers a lot of purists even if the marked value does not exceed the actual weight of gold and silver included. And of course once you alloy then governments can twiddle with the alloy percentages and coin weights which sets off the OCD types even if the government does not advertise bad gold or silver weights. Enough OCD false alarms and the common people stop listening then the government is really likely to put in less gold or silver during fiscal crisis.

-Why not just proclaim "a free market is a barter market"? Because with no easily available currency, there are few if any set prices. Many gold coin folk also think set prices are "rigged" prices. Something about bartering is supposed to reveal hidden true value or quality even if you know little about the product. I agree that in a barter economy what you "pay" depends on what you have to offer and your barter skill.

--And that is the REAL truth of every historical 100% gold coinage economy, coins were rarely used by the common people for any but the most expensive purchases in life. Almost all common business was good via goods exchange. Gold and silver coins were mainly a convenience for the well-to-do and rich and for significant business deals where no suitable goods exchange could be negotiated. The often referenced late 1800s were a rare exception due to the riches of the industrial revolution hitting a low population. But the American Western movie is still mostly a lie when you see gold coins being spent in a saloon. Silver and copper yes. But keep in mind a $20 gold piece was worth the equal of around $2000 USD today. The general store account is mostly true because goods tended to cost less than convenient coinage and coinage was short - and many an account settlement included home goods as well as coins.

72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what you are attempting to state above. A 100% backed paper money or a true gold standard (no legal tender paper) just means that this is the only money available and it will therefore be the only money used. It's value will be determined by the market. I pointed out above that the amount of gold available per person is roughly the same as it was 100 years ago under the 100% gold standard. The objections that there is not enough gold to serve as money is therefor plainly bogus.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you knew anything about economics you would know that having a gold standard is something that actually works against free markets. For example, (although it is not exactly the same as a gold standard) the euro is one of the reasons that the Greek debt crisis has become so bad. Because the ECB handles interest rates on the euro for the entire Eurozone, Greece is not able to simply devalue its own currency to lighten its debt burden. Because it can't exercise monetary policy it has few options and this has led to greater speculative attacks on Greek government bonds, CDS and other assets which has only further worsened Greek credit ratings and yields. If they could have used a currency devaluation to reinstate investor confidence they could have rolled over or restructured their debts and combined this with reduced spending to make the situation much more manageable.142.151.169.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

The reason the Greek debt crisis got so bad in that Greece, as a member of the EU, was able to get loans as almost the same rate as Germany. Rates which it did not deserve. With a lot of help from Goldman Sachs it was also able to HIDE large portions of its debt from the markets, which continued to loan even more money at undeservedly low rates. Higher interest rates serve to limit the size of debt by reducing the debt load that can be carried, and by acting as a disincentive to get deeper in debt. Under the EU euro regime, both of these two market forces were nullified. If Greece had borrowed at true free market rates it would have reached its debt load limit many years ago and likely would not have done so because of punitive high interest rates acting to limit debt growth.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW In free markets people get to choose the money of their choice. Fiat, which is imposed on the markets, is by definition anti-free markets. Gold and silver have been the money of choice for thousands of years while every fiat ever produced has already failed and is worthless or will eventually fail and become worthless.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"some economists" and lengthening of Great Depression

Per personal experience I believe that the "some economists" believe that the Great Depression was extended by the gold standard to be an gross exageration. I consider myself well read on economic matters and this article is the first place I have run across which blames the length of the Great Depression on the Gold Standard.

Unless cites can be provided showing that this position is supported by more then "a few" economists I will be changing that "some" to "a few".71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

still waiting to see if anyone can provide evidence for "some". So far I know of "two".71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to wait!71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

some is two if precedence means anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When the total number of economists is probably in the ten's of thousands, "some" implies more then 2.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The relation between the gold standard and the Great Depression is an important point in the literature. I'm surprised as you have not come across this given that you claim to be well read on economic matters. Just to give a couple of examples. Eichengreen has a well known piece on how staying on the gold standard delayed recovery from the Depression. Bernanke has a paper on the international propagation of the crisis through the mechanisms of the gold standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.25.181 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Eichengreen can claim that the moon is made of green cheese as well and that would jibe about as well with reality. Canada left the gold standard in 1929, Great Britain in 1931 the US in 1934, France in 1937. There is no substantial difference in the course of the Great depression in these 4 countries. The Great Depression did not end 8 years earlier in Canada then it did in France or 5 years earlier then it did in the US.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. So your claim is that it's "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Now you need to prove that because you're the one disputing the addition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I mention I find you two faced? Per wiki policy, the onus is on the one ADDING the material to prove it is not fringe. Like I said, good luck finding people who think closing gold mines will stop people from having babies, or from thinking up better ways of doing things.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your edit, I see nothing resembling the claim that "closing gold mines will stop people from having babies". As far as I can tell, you're the only one advancing that position. Furthermore, the source for that statement was from a collection of course materials compiled by Iowa State University Economics professor Eun Kwan Choi for an Econ. 355 class, and the main text for that class appears to be "International Economics: Theory and Policy" by Paul R. Krugman, who is a widely cited economist and almost certainly not a member of the "wacko fringe". 68.52.208.245 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even a graduate of public miseducation should know that economic growth depends, in part, on population growth. A larger population can produce more goods and services then a smaller one. It's one reason why the US has a bigger economy then Switzerland. If closing gold mines stops economic growth, then it must also stop population growth. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the "public miseducation" comment above - but continuing deletion of mainstream material by Somedifferentstuff is pi(&^&* me off.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Krugman is probably the last diehard Keynesian out there. He is one of the people that pushed (a decade ago) for money printing with the intent of causing a housing bubble. Look where that got us. He hasn't got up to speed on what happens to pump priming when you are already deep in debt. Pump priming works (somewhat) in a low debt environment, but when you are already deep in debt and facing default then the harm caused by getting deeper in debt outweighs the benefits of pump priming. To quote "you can't solve a debt problem by getting deeper in debt". 71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument that since "economic growth depends, in part, on population growth," therefore "if closing gold mines stops economic growth, then it must also stop population growth" is both logically unsound (based on the information provided) and a violation of Wikipedia policy to push in the manner you have chosen. First, there can be multiple variables impacting economic growth and the change of a single variable can impact economic growth requiring other variables to change in consequence. To assert otherwise requires that you provide a reliable source. Otherwise, you are pushing original research and possibly synthesizing an argument. Second, your assertion that Krugman "pushed (a decade ago) for money printing with the intent of causing a housing bubble" is possibly a violation of our policy on living persons. You are essentially asserting that Krugman intended to cause an economic crash and you must provide a reliable source to back up that claim, or you are in violation of policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There are in fact a multitude of things that effect economic growth. My objection was to the insertion of language in the article that a stop in gold production would stop economic growth. I hope we can agree that stopping gold production would not stop economic growth and that any such opinion is about as wacko fringe as UFO's are based inside a hollow earth.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Critisism of that minor theory keeps getting deleted

CITED criticism of this minor theory which shows that the authors didn't even get the order of countries leaving the gold standard correct, keeps getting deleted. Why? 71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada left the Gold standard in 1929, Great Britain in 1931, The US in 1934 and France in 1937. The Great Depression followed pretty much the exact same course in all of these countries. Is itr any wonder that this is a low popularity/fringe theory?71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Something's gotten chewed up here:

I can't tell what this sentence is supposed to mean, mostly because it's one long subject with no predicate:

"As notes devalued; or silver ceased to circulate as a store of value; or there was a depression as governments, demanding specie as payment, drained the circulating medium out of the economy."

Perhaps somebody who has followed this article in the past can figure out what happened to that and the passages on either side of it. Poihths (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gold in Industry

Have there been any reports done on how a gold standard would be affected now that we use gold as practical industrial material? I know for most of its history, gold had no large scale function, but is incredibly valuable for computer technologies today. I don't really know how to phrase this, so googling it hasnt worked out. I just didnt see it mentioned anywhere. I have no plans to request an update to the page, unless such a report can be found. So if anyone knows of one, that would be a good thing to put in. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

The gold exchange standard was in place during the interwar period not before WWI. Before WWI, the classical gold standard operated.

176.251.25.181 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

A higher savings rate leads to a higher growth rate

Seems clear that per Solow and his model as well as earlier models " a higher savings rate leads to a higher growth rate, although human inventiveness plays a higher role ... see language below. This language is also relevant to the wacko/fringe theory that closing gold mines under a gold standard will kill economic growth. All it will do is increase the value of gold money - i.e lead to deflation, such as was common in the high growth era of the 19th century.

A country with a higher saving rate will experience faster growth, e.g. Singapore had a 40% saving rate in the period 1960 to 1996 and annual GDP growth of 5-6%, compared with Kenya in the same time period which had a 15% saving rate and annual GDP growth of just 1%. This relationship was anticipated in the earlier models, and is retained in the Solow model; however, in the very long-run capital accumulation appears to be less significant than technological innovation in the Solow model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As with most of your recent edits please read WP:SYNTH ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

and what do I "synthesize" when I look at historic growth rates, and find that growth under a pure gold standard was higher then under a partial gold standard and much higher then under fiat paper?71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

tp://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2012/03/22/bernanke-slams-gold-defends-feds-make-it-up-system/3/

From Forbes magazine interview with Nathan Lewis. "You still can’t devalue yourself to prosperity. For 182 years, until 1971, the United States adhered to the principle of a gold standard, and became the wealthiest, most powerful, most innovative, and most advanced country the world has ever seen. Since 1971, even by the government’s own unnaturally-rosy statistics, the average worker is making less than in 1970, after adjusting for currency devaluation. The reality is that we are poorer than forty years ago. The United States is in a slow decline, and will likely remain in one until we return to the principle that made us great: the gold standard system."71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

POV tag added

Added POV tag due to continuing deletion of pro gold standard material and the insertion of bogus anti-gold material

1) Deletion of US Constitutional Convention language designed to ban paper money and insure US stayed on a silver and gold coin standard. Cites include language hosted at avalon.com run by Yale law School, from the notes of James Madison. Language attributed to James Madison of Federalist 44 and Language from US Supreme Court rulings also cited.

2) Deletion of material on the inter-war gold standard showing it was a dismal shadow of the true gold standard. Cites include Bordo and Eichengreen. Both authors are cited extensively elsewhere in the article.

3)Deletion of material showing that increased savings under a gold standard lead to higher economic growth. Check the history books - growth since the last ties to gold were dropped by Nixon in the 70's have been the most dismal in US history, while growth in the 19th century under the old school gold and silver coin standard were highest.

4)Material contrary to Eichengreens position that staying on the gold standard lengthened tge Great Depression. Plainly low popularity/fringe since NOBODY blames the US 1937 last gasp recession on the gold standard.

5) NOBODY Has shown that Eichengreens position (4) is anything other then low popularity/fringe yet it gets outsize mention.

6) Wacko Fringe dufus opinion that not mining gold under a gold standard will end economic growth is still in article. Economic growth depends on the number of people available to work, and newer better methods of production coming on line. Lastly to stop gold production under a gold standard you need to close every mine out there. Good freaking luck on that.

7) Article states that prices were more volatile under a gold standard. The author makes no claim that this volatility was caused by the gold standard itself. Others point to regular bank panics and the fractional banking system causing large swings in the money supply as banks overlend leading to a boom, then go broke when they overextend themselves leading to a contraction in lending and a shrinking money supply. It is basic economics that the supply of money has a direct effect on price levels. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How is (1) important to this article? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it not? Notice the article is about the gold standard and that the additional material is under US. I believe that a ban on paper money, taken to keep the US on a gold and silver coin standard, that was in effect for 100 years is relevant. Much more relevant that the fringe wacko dufus comment in the article that stopping gold mining will stop economic growth. see #6 above.71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source for such claims. Interpretation of primary sources falls under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I question your views on reliable sources since wiki prefers the use of primary sources on legal issues. Secondly Madison is both a primary and secondary source. He recorded the Votes. That makes his a secondary source. He took part in one of the votes and that also makes him a primary source, and pushed for a ban on paper money while campaigning for the US Constitution. The votes in question were cited by the dissenting US Supreme Court Justices in their dissent to the reversal of their upholding the ban on paper money by Grants newly packed court. The link to the US Legal Tender cases is provided and it plainly mentions that Madison recorded the votes in question. IS US Supreme Court language not good enough for you?

Additionally pretty the material is already part of the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. Please provide what convoluted thinking makes you believe that while the material is acceptable there, it is not acceptable on this article.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

8) Repeated deletion of material from Milton Friedman and others, in direct opposition to Eichengreens proposition that staying on the gold standard lengthened the Great Depression. The material from Milton Friedman was from an interview with him, and also direct quotes from his book with Anna Schwartz. Deletion of contrary positions by such a mainstream and respected figure in nothing other than biased. As pointed earlier Canada went off the Gold Standard in 1929, Britain in 1931, the US in 1934 and France in 1937 yet the Great Depression followed pretty much the same course in all of these countries. One of the dissenters to Eichengreen pointed out, that Eichengreens proposition can only be find support by a careful choice of countries, and even then the the dates used for when those countries went off the gold standard are not the historically accepted dates. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

wiki policy on primary sources

wiki police on the use of primary sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"

The policy plainly states that wiki policy allows the use of primary sources to make straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that can easily be confirmed.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government and that the vote passed 9 to 2.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the states and that this vote also passed.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that James Madison campaigned against paper money due to its "pestilent effects" and pushed for the enactment of the new US Constitution because it banned paper money.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that the US Supreme Court originally held that paper money was unconstitutional.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that the US Supreme Court later reversed itself and stated that paper money was constitutional. Material from the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases states that this reversal happened because Grant packed the court with two new pro paper money justices.

I don't see anything here that would be called synthesis, original research, or the improper use of a primary source. Most of the material already appears in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. One exception being the vote taken to deny the states the power to print money, which is irrelevant to a case determining whether the Feds can print money.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that ties all these things together otherwise it's synth. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you believe that I am synthesizing?71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing as it relates to the gold standard. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is this "whole thing" thingie? Please be specific. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The "whole thing" is your synthesis of the relationship between the gold standard and the primary sources above. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The above material was about the US staying on a gold and silver coin standard. It was called bi-metallism. Look it up.71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Response re:Madison

The following list is from 71.174.135.204's post of 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC). I've taken the liberty of adding using the citations, prefixed with [IP], from its edit request of 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC); please advise if this is incorrect.

1. From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government and that the vote passed 9 to 2.

• The citation supplied only confirms that a motion to strike "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" was made and reason given by the delegate making the motion. The supplied quote gives only the first of the fifteen lines reported and omits the footnotes from the quote supplied for the vote. Specifically...

  FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts.

• While there was certainly a lengthy debate on the topic and "it is necessary to concede that a powerful argument may be built up from the intent of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention"; claiming the vote enacted a constitutional "ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government" is a fabrication.
• Also, the source is WP:PRIMARY.

2. From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the states and that this vote also passed.

• Ignoring the fact that the source is WP:PRIMARY and that some lines are omitted. This has nothing to do with the topic of the article and only serves to confuse the issue with phrases like "any thing but gold & silver coin a tender", "making these prohibitions absolute", and "a favorable crisis for crushing paper money".

3. From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that James Madison campaigned against paper money due to its "pestilent effects" and pushed for the enactment of the new US Constitution because it banned paper money.

• This is simply the disingenuous use of a primary source cherry-picked for the use of "pestilent effects". In other words, the statement is an unsupported fabrication.

• Please read WP:PRIMARY..."All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."... "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Madison is most definitely a primary source in this instance.

I'll cover the Legal Tender Cases and the "Grant packed the Court" fabrication later. Right now I need a shower. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and References
IP Citations References

I find your response avoids the issue. Per wiki policy a primary source can be used if the statement based on that source is easily verifiable by a lay person.

1) Did or did not a vote take place stripping/deleting the power to emit bills of credit from the enumerated powers of the Federal government, which passed 9 to 2, stripping/deleting that power from the draft copy of the US Constitution?

1a) Is or is not the power to "emit bills of credit" a power listed in the early draft of the US Constitution Section VII Section 1 provided here http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/draft.html

1b) Is it not true that the power to "emit bills of credit" is a power NOT listed ANYWHERE in the final version of the US Constitution since that power was stripped/deleted from the list of enumerated powers http://constitutionus.com/

1c) Is the power to emit bills of credit the power that we today colloquially call the power to print money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_credit

2)Did or did not a vote take place stripping the power to emit bills of credit from the states? Is or is not that power prohibited to the states in the final version of the US Constitution?

2a) Did or did not the states prior to the formation of the Federal government have the power to "emit bills of credit" and that they exercised that power during the Revolutionary War by emitting Continentals?

2b) In order to ban paper money aka bills of credit, does or does not one have to prohibit that power from ALL entities capable of exercising it?

3) Did or did not Madison campaign in favor of the US Constitution in Federalist 44, by stating http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin.

4: You avoided any mention of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on paper money, declaring the Civil War "greenback" unconstitutional.

5: You avoided the later Supreme Court ruling reversing that ban after Grant added two pro-paper money justices, in which the dissenters (the people upholding the paper money ban in point (4) specifically mention the votes in points (1) and (2). http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/case.html

5a) For instance, does or does not this language appear in Legal Tender Cases - 79 U.S. 457 (1870) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/case.html

The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]

Lastly: Your complaint was that primary sources cannot be used. That is 100% wrong and your objections do not show that you have learned anything. You have not addressed this issue. Please reread the policy and address the same. Your attempts to avoid this issue with specious arguments are not appreciated in the least.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Which part of "I'll cover the Legal Tender Cases and the "Grant packed the Court" fabrication later." did you not understand? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your objections miss the point of wiki rules on primary sources. The point is that the primary sources state that 1) there was a vote taken to strip the power to emit bills of credit from the Constitution and that the vote passed,2) that there was a vote passed to strip the states from emitting bills of credit and that the vote passed,3) that Madison while campaigning for the Constitution urged the states to give up the power to print money, and that the states WOULD be giving up that power by enacting the new constitution,4) that the US Supreme Court initially ruled that the civil war greenbacks were unconstitutional, 5)and that later the US Supreme Court overturned this earlier decision after Grant added two new pro paper money justices who voted to overturn the unconstitutionality of the greenback and who declared the greenback paper money Constitutional over the objections of what had been a previous majority. Is there anything here that CANNOT be confirmed by a lay person with no special knowledge of the topic, when looking at the cites provided?? THIS is the core issue. Pretty much everything else is hot air.

Addressing your accusation that I am cherry picking. On the vote to strip the power to issued bills of credit that won on a vote of 9 to 2. Following are the comments, per Madison, of the two opposed. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens

Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise.

Both plainly understood that the vote was about prohibition paper money. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Response re:All

1. Did or did not a vote take place stripping/deleting the power to emit bills of credit from the enumerated powers of the Federal government, which passed 9 to 2, stripping/deleting that power from the draft copy of the US Constitution?

• Yes, a vote took place August 16, 1787 on a motion to strike "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" from enumerated powers of the legislature in a draft copy of the US Constitution. The vote passed 9 to 2.

1a. Is or is not the power to "emit bills of credit" a power listed in the early draft of the US Constitution Section VII Section 1 provided here?

• The phrase "To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States;" is listed under "The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to..."

1b. Is it not true that the power to "emit bills of credit" is a power NOT listed ANYWHERE in the final version of the US Constitution since that power was stripped/deleted from the list of enumerated powers?

• Obviously, "emit bills of credit" is not listed in the enumerated powers or elsewhere in the Constitution.

1c. Is the power to emit bills of credit the power that we today colloquially call the power to print money?

• More or less. For the purpose of this discussion; Yes.

2. Did or did not a vote take place stripping the power to emit bills of credit from the states? Is or is not that power prohibited to the states in the final version of the US Constitution?

• The is no doubt that Article I.10 "No State shall...emit Bills of Credit" prohibits the states from issuing bills of credit.

2a. Did or did not the states prior to the formation of the Federal government have the power to "emit bills of credit" and that they exercised that power during the Revolutionary War by emitting Continentals?

• The power of the states to "emit bills of credit" was virtually unlimited under the Articles of Confederation.

2b. In order to ban paper money aka bills of credit, does or does not one have to prohibit that power from ALL entities capable of exercising it?

• Yes. Typically one must prohibit something one wants prohibited.

3. Did or did not Madison campaign in favor of the US Constitution in Federalist 44, by stating [the following]?

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin.

• The cherry-picked quote above excludes, as well as the first three paragraphs, the fact Madison is specifically discussing changes concerning the power of the several states...

A fifth class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:

1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility."

The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible.

The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance, also, the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head; and as far as the former might prevent an inconvenient remittance of gold and silver to the central mint for recoinage, the end can be as well attained by local mints established under the general authority.

—Madison, James (Friday, January 25, 1788), The Federalist No. 44, Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

• And yes, it is generally accepted that Madison was in favor of the Constitution.

4. You avoided any mention of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on paper money, declaring the Civil War "greenback" unconstitutional.

• Here is a mention of the case...

In Hepburn v. Griswold^§, 75 U.S. (8 Wall) 603 (1869) the Supreme Court ruled parts of the Legal Tender Acts to be unconstitutional. This included issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency known as "greenbacks."

We are obliged to conclude that an act making mere promises to pay dollars a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted, is not a means appropriate, plainly adapted, really calculated to carry into effect any express power vested in Congress, that such an act is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and that it is prohibited by the Constitution.

—Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall) 603, 626 (1869)(Chief Justice Chase, Opinion of the Court)

^§ The holding in Hepburn v. Griswold was explicitly overruled by Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall) 457 (1870).

• What "ban on paper money" was upheld in Hepburn v. Griswold? Do you have a source for such a ban?

5. You avoided the later Supreme Court ruling reversing that ban after Grant added two pro-paper money justices, in which the dissenters (the people upholding the paper money ban in point (4) specifically mention the votes in points (1) and (2). [2]

• The Supreme Court did not "reverse" a "ban" on paper money. It overruled the holding of Hepburn v. Griswold...

But, without extending our remarks further, it will be seen that we hold the acts of Congress constitutional as applied to contracts made either before or after their passage. In so holding, we overrule so much of what was decided in Hepburn v. Griswold, [Footnote 18: 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 603] as ruled the acts unwarranted by the Constitution so far as they apply to contracts made before their enactment.

—Justice Strong, Opinion of the Court, Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall) 457, 553 (1870)

• Overruling is an explicit action with explicit results...

overrule, vb. (16c)

1. To rule against; to reject <the judge overruled all of the defendant's objections>.

2. (Of a court) to overturn or set aside (a precedent) by expressly deciding that it should no longer be controlling law <in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson>

—Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Overruling is an act of superior jurisdiction. A precedent overruled is definitely and formally deprived of all authority. It becomes null and void, like a repealed statute, and a new principle is authoritatively substituted for the old.

—Salmond, John (1947). Glanville L. Williams (ed.). Jurisprudence (10th ed.).

• The accusation of court "packing", with "two pro-paper money justices", by President Grant is just a lame, and not very original, attempt to vilify the Court, the Congress and the President...

It is vain, as a legal proposition, to meditate upon the appropriateness of the measures chosen by the Congress, for if they partake of this quality in any degree they are adequate.⁴⁷ To press further into the question would be to abandon the judicial forum and enter the legislative hall. The Court once went astray on this topic,⁴⁸ going into the necessity and suitability of the means, and, substituting the discretion of the bench for that of the legislature, found the Legal Tender Acts unconstitutional. The error was shortly righted,⁴⁹ but not without drawing down calumny^† and opprobrium^‡ upon the heads of the justices.⁵⁰ Thus to malign the reputations of the then incumbents is to villify[sic] despite rather than because of the facts.

During the Civil War decade the numerical constitution of the Supreme Court was in a state of flux.⁵¹ The change from eight to nine justices in 1869⁵² is not, therefore, to be looked upon as the solitary move of its kind with a sinister background, but rather as a final step in several endeavors to arrive at an ideal number. This is amply supported by the fact that the law making mandatory[sic] the enlarged bench was passed some months prior to the decision in Hepburn v. Griswold, and the appointments of Justices Strong and Bradley were made a few hours before the disclosure of the decision,⁵³ the reversal of which is asserted to have been the predominant reason for their selection.⁵⁴ It is therefore clear almost to the point of demonstration that the President did not "pack" the Supreme Court in order to secure a reversal of Hepburn v. Griswold, —equally manifest it is that learned and able justices were selected, who knew their rights and appreciated their duties while retaining the courage to assert and perform them in a way perhaps impolitic but nevertheless legitimate.

2;font-size:94%

—"The Satisfaction of Gold Clause Obligations by Legal Tender Paper". 4 Fordham L. Rev. 287–295. 294. 1935.

2;font-size:94%

5a. For instance, does or does not this language appear in Legal Tender Cases?

The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]

• The language above appears here in the dissent written by Chief Justice Chase. A dissent has no (has in zero) legal weight and sets no precedent. The claim that "...the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution" is the opinion of Justice Chase and his alone.

6. Your complaint was that primary sources cannot be used. That is 100% wrong and your objections do not show that you have learned anything. You have not addressed this issue. Please reread the policy and address the same. Your attempts to avoid this issue with specious arguments are not appreciated in the least.

• I do not believe I have ever stated "primary sources cannot be used". I would have been wrong if I did...

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

• What I did say here is "...Interpretation of primary sources falls under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH." in response to your claim here that "...US Constitutional Convention language designed to ban paper money and insure US stayed on a silver and gold coin standard." was supported by the notes of James Madison, Federalist 44 and US Supreme Court rulings. None of the sources provided support the claim without analysis, interpretation or synthesis. Using Madison's convention notes to report vote counts is perfectly acceptable. Using them to support the claim above is not. I would advise you to bring reliable secondary sources in support of your claims.

Done for now (although I'm sure I missed something). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for article edit

I am requesting the following historical information be included at the start of the section on the US. The vast majority already appears in the Legal Tender Cases wiki article and in neither synthesis, nor OR. The cites are also used in that article as well and are reliable.

Based on the bad experience with the Continental, during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip language allowing the Federal Government to print paper money, at the time called "bills of credit", which was carried on a vote of 9 to 2. A later vote taken to completely strip the power to print paper money from the states was agreed to on a vote of with 8 states in favor, 1 opposed and 1 divided. Writing in favor of the new Constitution James Madison wrote that the power to print money should also be given up by the states due to its "pestilent effects". This ban on paper money lasted until the need to fund the Civil War forced the Federal Government to issue legal tender paper "greenbacks". When the constitutionality of the greenback was challenged the US Supreme Court initially ruled that they were unconstitutional.However the addition of two new pro paper money justices by President Grant resulted in overturning the prior ruling in what are usually referred to as the Legal Tender Cases.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

De Gaulle

"Under the administration of the French President Charles de Gaulle up to 1970, France reduced its dollar reserves..." In fact de Gaulle stood down as president in 1969. So should this say "up to 1969", or did it continue until 1970 under de Gaulle's successor Pompidou? MFlet1 (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Government policies tent to extend beyond the term of the leader who put them in place, so it is should not surprise that France continued to convert dollars into gold after deGaulle left office. France under deGaulle was directly responsible for breaking the London Gold Pool. To put in simple terms France converted the dollars it received from trade to gold in London and took its gold out of the London Market. This caused a scarcity of gold and ended up breaking the Pool which was used by England and the US to keep the dollar fixed to gold for purposes of international trade. The Pool's breakdown led to the demise of the Breton Woods system shortly after and the cutting of the last ties of the dollar to gold by Nixon.

Same old story of printing too many dollars, causing them to fall in value against real goods and services. That time the printing was to fund the guns and butter policies of Johnson aka to fund the Vietnam War without raising taxes. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You really need to supply source given your history of WP:SYNTH, etc. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What SYNTH? That the Founding fathers took action to keep the US on a gold and silver coin standard after their experience with the Continental? That is historical fact. BTW: Still waiting on you to explain to me why that fact, prominently included in the Legal Tender Cases article cannot be used in this article.71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet more bias

A bias tag on the article has now been removed without a discussion of the points raised above. This is in violation of wiki policy and just goes to show that at least some wiki editors are interested in nothing but removing dissenting voices. Perhaps they believe that consensus can be achieves by silencing those that do not consent. Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink straight out of 1984.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, just junk without proper sources from the world of the fringe. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you consider US Supreme Court opinion a fringe source?71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IP User

(Past post)

User: 71.184.188.254 (talk) has been blocked for a month which can be seen on his talk page. He added the POV tag to this article and I will remove it unless there are any objections. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed POV tag. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Present post)

• User: 71.174.135.204, whose comments can be seen in the sections above, is the same person as 71.184.188.254 (talk). This article (but not the talk page), was recently protected from IP edits as can be seen here [3]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of the tag then and your removal of that tag now is contrary to wiki policies on bias tag. Wiki policy requires that the items in dispute be discussed before removal. They were not discussed then and they have not been discussed now. Lastly I was banned for reporting your sorry ass for committing a 3rr violation which you in fact did commit. In the Orwellian world of wikipedia, where some are more equal then others, reporting a 3rr is a punishable offense.71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see this. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

primary sources

Again: wiki policy allows for the use of primary sources as long as a lay person with no special knowledge of the topic can confirm that material added is backed by the primary document. Unless it can be shown that a lay person CANNOT confirm the material added, then any objection to the use of a primary document is just hot air.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also Again: From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government and that the vote passed 9 to 2.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the states and that this vote also passed.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that James Madison campaigned against paper money due to its "pestilent effects" and pushed for the enactment of the new US Constitution because it banned paper money.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that the US Supreme Court originally held that paper money was unconstitutional.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that the US Supreme Court later reversed itself and stated that paper money was constitutional. Material from the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases states that this reversal happened because Grant packed the court with two new pro paper money justices.

I don't see anything here that would be called synthesis, original research, or the improper use of a primary source. Most of the material already appears in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. One exception being the vote taken to deny the states the power to print money, which is irrelevant to a case determining whether the Feds can print money.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An aside on HEPBURN: Prior to the issuance of greenbacks to fund the Civil War there is NO record of the the Federal Government printing money, or declaring same to be legal tender. The greenback era wad thus the first time this issue COULD appear before the courts. There was a case, which I believe was around 1830 which declared it illegal for a state to pay its bills with promissory notes instead of cold hard cash. If you want I should be able to find this case as well. The case does have relevance re: the California IOU's of the recent past.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Last chance: What is your point and what does it have to do with improving this article? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering you have avoiding responding to the core issue, which has to do with the proper use of primary sources I have yet to have a a FIRST chance. As to my objective: I am trying to add relevant material on the US gold and silver standard as practiced preceding the civil war. Last I checked the world was not created in the 1870's. Even hardcore Christians give it a few thousand years. You objected to the material I added on the grounds of improper use of primary sources. Above I point out AGAIN, that I used primary sources in accordance with wiki policy on the use of those sources. I am again addressing your objection. You continue to avoid that issue.

Please advise, as requested on numerous occasions, exactly what a lay person without knowledge of the subject CANNOT confirm??71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. What can and cannot be confirmed...

1. It cannot easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government and that the vote passed 9 to 2. Such a vote never took place.

2. It can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the states and that this vote also passed.

3. It cannot easily be confirmed that James Madison campaigned against paper money due to its 'pestilent effects' and pushed for the enactment of the new US Constitution because it banned paper money.

However, it can easily be confirmed that in Federalist 44 the author, presumably James Madison derided the issuance of paper money by the states under the Articles of Confederation due to its "pestilent effects" and supported the new Constitution's prohibition against the states from issuing paper money in writing that this "must give pleasure to every citizen".

4. It can easily be confirmed that in Hepburn v. Griswold (1896) the US Supreme Court originally held that paper money held the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender, the paper currency known as "greenbacks", under the Legal Tender Acts unconstitutional.

5. It can easily be confirmed that in Legal Tender Cases (1870) the US Supreme Court reversed itself overruled Hepburn v. Griswold and stated that paper money was finding issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender, the paper currency known as "greenbacks", under the Legal Tender Acts constitutional.

6. Material from the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases states states that this reversal happened because Grant packed the court with two new pro paper money justices.

• Regardless of the fact that Grant did not "pack" the Court with "pro-paper money" justices... see WP:CIRCULAR. And thanks for pointing out the errors in that article. I'll fix it.

Please note: WP:AGF is not a death pact. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Point 1: What exactly do you think that the vote recorded by James Madison as passing 9 to 2 was about? The vote specifically motioned by Gov. Morris on Aug 16, 1787 with

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

with the vote being

On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22]

The position of the two opposed are recorded as follows by Madison

Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens

Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise.

It seems to me that both Mr Mercer and Mr Randolph understand that they are voting to prohibit paper money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What Mercer or Randolph understood is immaterial. The only result of that vote was the striking of "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" from the enumerated powers. Nothing more, nothing less. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Down to one item in dispute. I hope! The proposed addition was as follows "Based on the bad experience with the Continental, during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip language allowing the Federal Government to print paper money, at the time called "bills of credit", which was carried on a vote of 9 to 2." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Was there or was there not a vote recorded on Madison's notes for Aug 16, 1787 to strip/remove/delete the power to issue "bills on the credit of the United States"? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp If you want I can again link a copy of the draft Constitution which includes the power to issue "bills of credit".

During the vote the opinion of Mr. Elseworth is recorded by Madison as "Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good."

If the vote was not about paper money, then what was it about? Madison asks Gov Morris if a prohibition on making this something a tender would not be sufficient, so it obviously has something to do with something that can be made "a tender" with paper money being mentioned by about half of those taking part in the discussion. "Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender?"

BTW: Are you aware that the term "a tender" appears only once in the US Constitution - No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Golly Gee Batman, what ever could the vote be about. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the vote was about paper money. However, it did not ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government. The sole result was the striking of "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps pointing out the meaning of "emit" might help

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emit emit 2nd meaning: a : to issue with authority; especially : to put (as money) into circulation. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it satisfy you if the comment was changed to something like "removed the power to issue paper as money"? 71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really as the power was not removed. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that removing language permitting the exercise of a power, has absolutely nothing to do with the actual exercise of that power. How Orwellian of you! Please enlighten me by informing me what power, if any, was removed by removing the language allowing the issuance of bills of credit. So far we know that to emit means "to issue" and that bills of credit were referred to as "paper money" by the people taking the vote. Go for it! 71.174.135.204 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what power was removed. Obviously it was not the power to issue bills of credit (aka paper money).

You do understand that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law under the Constitution, right? That the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the only interpretation that carries any legal weight? If you are claiming the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to make paper money legal tender then take it up with the Court.

Take the time to understand OuroborosCobra's comment below. Until you come with some sources my work here is done. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

More Orwellian doublethink. You say you don't know what something is but it sure as hell isn't this thing despite that there thing being virtually spat upon by virtually everyone taking part in the vote. As for the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, I point out that per US Supreme Court rulings paper money was unconstitutional for close to 100 years until the Supreme Court reversed itself in the Legal Tender Cases after two pro paper money justices were added by Grant.

This is no different than stating that abortions were illegal in the US up until Roe v Wade when enough pro abortion judges had been nominated into the court to reverse prior rulings. For close to 100 years that "arbiter" held a position on paper money opposite to the current one, and that this position was why there was no Federal paper money issued in the US for that period of time.

Do you also take the position that abortion was ALWAYS legal in the US, jut because it is considered legal now?71.174.135.204 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, this is the entire reason why Wikipedia shies away from using Primary Sources. It forces us into interpretation of those sources. Find reliable secondary sources supporting your interpretation of these documents. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What interpretation is there. I state that there was a vote during the Constitutional Convention to strip language allowing the issuance of paper money. That the vote passed 9 to 2 is part of the historical record. Last I checked when you strip off a power, the entity you strip it from NO LONGER HAS IT. Do you disagree?

I already provided language from the dissent to the Legal Tender Cases from the Supreme Court Justices who upheld a tradition lasting almost 100 years of no paper money. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/case.html - BTW: There were a number of dissents in the case written by different judges. What may look like virtually identical material below is similar opinions by different justices.

"The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]"

"Suffice it to say, without reproducing the discussion, that the motion prevailed -- nine states to two -- and the clause was stricken out and no attempt was ever made to restore it. Paper money as legal tender had few or no advocates in the Convention, and it never had more than one open advocate throughout the period the Constitution was under discussion, either in the Convention which framed it or in the conventions of the states where it was ratified. Virginia voted in the affirmative on the motion to strike out that clause, Mr. Madison being satisfied that if the motion prevailed, it would not have the effect to disable the government from the use of Treasury notes, and being himself in favor of cutting "off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts." [Footnote 4/38] When the draft for the Constitution was reported, the clause prohibiting the states from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts contained an exception "in case Congress consented," but the Convention struck out the exception and made the prohibition absolute, one of the members remarking that it was a favorable moment to crush out paper money, and all or nearly all of the Convention seemed to concur in the sentiment. [Footnote 4/39]

""Sufficient also is recorded in the reports of the decisions of this Court to show that the Court, from the organization of the judicial system to the day when the judgments in the cases before the court were announced, [Footnote 4/51] held opinions utterly opposed to such a construction of the Constitution as would authorize Congress to make paper promises a legal tender as between debtor and creditor.""

"Virginia voted for the motion, and Mr. Madison has appended a note to the debates stating that her vote was occasioned by his acquiescence and that he became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the government from the use of public notes, as far as they could be safe and proper, and would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 5/14]" If anything is manifest from these debates, it is that the members of the Convention intended to withhold from Congress the power to issue bills to circulate as money -- that is, to be receivable in compulsory payment, or, in other words, having the quality of legal tender -- and that the express power to issue the bills was denied under an apprehension that if granted, it would give a pretext to Congress, under the idea of declaring their effect, to annex to them that quality."

A couple more references that say the same thing http://www.mega.nu/ampp/getman.html Per the source the material is based on a Law Review article "The phrase "and emit bills" finally was struck from the document because the overwhelming majority of the framers were unalterably opposed to paper legal tender."

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/john-jay-knox/united-states-notes-a-history-of-the-various-issues-of-paper-money-by-the-gover-xon/1-united-states-notes-a-history-of-the-various-issues-of-paper-money-by-the-gover-xon.shtml John Jay Knox served as Comptroller of the Currency in the 1800's and his comment on the legal tender case is that the ruling was a result of a slow process of a less and less strict observance of the intent of the Framers

"At the date of the adoption of the Constitution, the issue of paper money in any form was popularly re- garded with aversion. The experience of the colonists with bills of credit, as paper money was then called, had been fraught with loss and political disturbance, and the experience with the like issues by the Contin- ental Congress had so affected the minds of the wisest and best men of that time, that in the Federal Conven-tion the general feeling was one of almost bitter opposi-tion to granting the power to emit bills of credit to the new Government. IS'o one can examine the records of those days without being thoroughly impressed that the sense of the Convention was in favor of an absolute prohibition. Further proof may be found in the fact that from 1791 to 1812, a period of twenty-one years, the method of raising funds for the Government by the issue of bills of credit was not even suo^cjested"

I left what looks like scanning errors alone so nobody can complain I edited the document71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good primary source for ya...

In view, therefore, of all these facts when we find them establishing the present government, with all the powers before rehearsed, giving to it, amongst other things, the sole control of the money of the country and expressly prohibiting the States from issuing bills of credit and from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender, and imposing no such restriction upon the General government, how can we resist the conclusion that they intended to leave to it that power unimpaired, in case the future exigencies of the nation should require its exercise?

I am aware that according to the report of Mr. Madison in the original draft of the Constitution, the clause relating to the borrowing of money read, 'to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States,' and that the words, 'and emit bills,' were, after some debate, struck out. But they were struck out with diverse views of members, some deeming them useless and others deeming them hurtful. The result was that they chose to adopt the Constitution as it now stands, without any words either of grant or restriction of power, and it is our duty to construe the instrument by its words, in the light of history, of the general nature of government, and the incidents of sovereignty.

The same argument was employed against the creation of a United States bank. A power to create corporations was proposed in the Convention and rejected. The power was proposed with a limited application to cases where the public good might require them and the authority of a single State might be incompetent. It was still rejected. It was then confined to the building of canals, but without effect. It was argued that such a power was unnecessary and might be dangerous. Yet Congress has not only chartered two United States banks, whose constitutionality has been sustained by this court, but several other institutions. As a means appropriate and conducive to the end of carrying into effect the other powers of the government, such as that of borrowing money with promptness and dispatch, and [79 U.S. 457, 560] facilitating the fiscal operations of the government, it was deemed within the power of Congress to create such an institution under the general power given to pass all such laws as might be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers granted. The views of particular members or the course of proceedings in the Convention cannot control the fair meaning and general scope of the Constitution as it was finally framed and now stands. It is a finished document, complete in itself, and to be interpreted in the light of history and of the circumstances of the period in which it was framed.

—79 U.S. (12 Wall) 457, 559 (1870), Justice Bradley (concurring).

Enjoy. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That of course is his opinion, but it was not the opinion of the majority of the court prior to the Legal Tender Cases, just as the legality of abortions was not the opinion of the court until Roe v Wade. There are any number of issues on which the position of the court has changed over the years. Despite the 14th Amendment, the 5th amendment right against self incrimination was only recently (historically speaking) imposed upon the states. The 2nd amendment right to own a gun was imposed upon the states only a couple of years ago (McDonald v Chicago) again despite the longstanding prohibition in the 14th. As far as I know Section 2 of the 14th Amendment has NEVER been enforced (that is the requirement that apportionment of Representatives be adjusted for any deprivation of the right to vote) despite that requirement being on the books for about 140 years. What is your problem with showing the historical fact that Supreme Court opinion on paper money changed with the Legal Tender Cases? Last I checked history did not start after the Civil War.71.174.135.204 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Federalist 44

It is believed that Madison wrote Federalist 44

According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, the Federalist papers were written by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203506/Federalist-papers

same for the New World Book Encyclopedia http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Federalist_papers further states that Hamilton and Madison authorship lists with 12 papers having disputed authorship. It also states that research shows Madison's list to be the correct one. "Statistical analysis has been undertaken a number of times to try to decide based on word frequencies and writing styles, and nearly all of the statistical studies show that all 12 disputed papers were written by Madison."

Constitution.org lists Madison as the author http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm

Yale Law School lists Madison as the author http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed44.asp

The university of Chicago lists Madison as the author http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_1s5.html

Seems to me that the per just about every reputable source states Madison wrote Federalist 44 including Madison himself.71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Federalist 44 is not one of the papers whose authorship is in dispute. In this site http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/madison.htm papers with disputed authorship are listed as (Hamilton or Madison) See Federalist 63 for an example. No such notation appears beside 44. You seem to believe that authorship of Federalist 44 is in dispute. Does or does not Yale Law School show Madison as the author http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed44.asp and is or is not Yale Law School as reputable source?71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. You are right I was confused on the numbers. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Madisons note FN23

Would a lay person with no special knowledge be able to confirm that "according to Madison's Notes" the vote to strip/delete/remove the language allowing the issuance of notes on the credit of the US "would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts."?

Complete note - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it is not our place to interpret these primary sources, especially when they are legal in nature. Find a secondary source that interprets your primary. I don't even know why you are asking about a "lay person" to begin with. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki policy allows the use of primary sources if a lay person with no special knowledge of the issue can confirm the material added to the article is supported by the source. Your objection is noted and discarded as irrelevant to this discussion.71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki policy plainly states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

A secondary source is only required if there is an interpretation of the source material "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You have made the same claim or asked the same question at least nine times [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. If you don't like the answers please feel free to file a report at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. You might also want read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to me that SOMEONE has yet to grasp that wiki allows primary sources for citations. Please respond as to whether Madison understood, from his notes, that the vote passed 9-2 was to cut off any pretext for paper money and making legal tender of the same.71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are asking for interpretation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that ten times that you've asked this question. You should ask over at WP:RSN —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I interpreting this as well? http://www.rogershermansociety.org/nature_of_money.htm

George Bancroft's History of the United States of America, Vol. VI. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1886, Page 303 states it this way:

James Madison left his testimony that "the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off." This is the interpretation of the clause, made at the time of its adoption alike by its authors and by its opponents, accepted by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive.71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That depends, what are you trying to use it to say? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to say that there was a vote at the Constitutional Convention to strip the power to issue paper money from the new Constitution, that this vote passed 9 to 2 and that per Madison the purpose of the vote was to cut off any "pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making that currency a tender". 71.174.135.204 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The former is not stated in your primary source. Removing language from the Constitution does not mean that the power does not exist, per say. Furthermore, no language was added specifically prohibiting that power and even if Madison did vote for that reason, he wasn't the only voter. Per note 63, some of those voting for striking the language did so not out of total opposition to paper money, but rather out of a hope to not promote its adoption. Some, such as Gorham, specifically opposed adding language prohibiting the use of paper money as they did not want to prohibit its use, just not promote it. Therefore, by the votes and discussion, it seems that power was not intended as prohibited to Congress. This is why it is worth having secondary sources for interpretation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation does not conform to the source document aka Madisons Notes FN23

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts

According to Madison the vote was to "cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender" The "secondary source plainly states that "This is the interpretation of the clause, made at the time of its adoption alike by its authors and by its opponents, accepted by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive." Constitutional interpretation has changed over the years, going from the question of whether a power was delegated to whether a power could be sneaked in on some pretext. The Founders, cognizant of "power creep" added the 10th Amendment shortly after in the Bill of Rights to prohibit the use of powers "not delegated". The power to "emit" paper money was removed and therefore NOT DELEGATED because the prohibition on making it a legal tender was considered INSUFICIENT! see below.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bills of credit and paper money synonymous

From U.S. Supreme Court BRISCOE v. BANK OF KENTUCKY, 36 U.S. 257 (1837)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=36&invol=257

Bills of credit and paper money are synonymous. The abuse of paper money, during the difficulties of the revolutionary war, and the ruin which its extravagant issue produced, were the causes of the constitutional prohibition.

and from Craig v. Missouri - 29 U.S. 410 (1830)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/29/410/case.html

Craig v. Missouri - 29 U.S. 410 (1830)

"To emit bills of credit" conveys to the mind the idea of issuing paper intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes as money, which paper is redeemable at a future day. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Madison's Notes http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

From the above Madison asks if instead of prohibiting the emission of paper money, a prohibiting on the making of paper money a tender would be sufficient. Mr. Morris answers that it would be insufficient because the monied interests would oppose the plan if paper emissions were not prohibited.

Madisons note FN23 plainly states that is his understanding that the purpose of the vote was to "cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts.71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gorham misinterpreted

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.

Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.

From above Gorham was against the issuance of paper money, and thought that the only power that would be "necessary or safe" to delegate would be the power to borrow. It seems to me plainly obvious that there is no need to insert a prohibition making paper money a tender when the power to emit paper money itself is prohibited and cannot exist.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The vote is the vote

Re objections that people voted for or against the issuance of paper money for different reasons, what does that have to do with the fact that the vote carried 9 to 2? That the vote passed 9 to 2 is a historical fact supported by all known documentation. This fact is NOT subject to debate.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

On the motion for striking out

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] 71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A) They did not vote for or against the existence of paper money. Many, possibly including Madison himself (why you harp pretty much only on him and not the ten others, I don't know) recognized its importance at times of need such as the Revolution. The vote was for or against inclusion of specific language within the US Constitution. Arguments about the 10th Amendment don't really hold up considering that it did not exist at the time of this vote.

B) What the vote actually means, legally speaking, is something for secondary sources and/or the courts to determine. They have, and determined that paper money is not against the Constitution, and that the voters did not intend to forbid the power to make paper money.

I am left asking exactly what it is that you want to put in the article. What is the purpose of this conversation, and what do ou want to use the vote to say? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They voted to ban the issue of paper money, during which vote a suggestion by Madison to just ban the making of it "a tender" was rejected as insufficient.71.174.135.204 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to B I am asking for the inclusion of material showing that up until the Legal Tender Cases, a period of about 100 years, Court opinion was that paper money was prohibited.71.174.135.204 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the 10th Amendment, it was enacted to prevent an ever increasing growth in the power of the Federal Government. The 10th specifically prohibits the exercise of powers NOT granted. The power to issue money was in fact NOT GRANTED.71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As to what I want to put in the article I suggest you read the section of this talk page where I have specified what I wish included. It's been sitting there waiting for you to act on it.71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia censors on a roll

What other explanation is there for refusing to cover 100 years worth of history?71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)