ChatGPT: federalist papers and money

Highlights thread as a discussion with ChatGPT

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
16,021
Reaction score
5,568
Points
268
Location
Texas
United-States
What did the framers of the Constitution intend that America use for money? Did they discuss the issue with respect tot he Federal Government in the Federalist Papers?
 
The framers of the Constitution intended for the United States to use a stable and uniform system of currency. In the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 44, the issue of money and finance was indeed discussed in relation to the newly proposed Federal Government. While the specific details of currency and monetary policy were not extensively addressed in the Federalist Papers, the importance of having a reliable and trustworthy monetary system under the control of the federal government was emphasized.

The Founding Fathers sought to establish a national monetary system that would promote economic stability, facilitate trade, and prevent issues such as counterfeiting and inflation. By giving the federal government the authority to regulate coinage and currency, they aimed to provide a consistent and credible medium of exchange for the young nation.

Additionally, the Constitution granted Congress the power to coin money, regulate its value, and establish uniform standards of weights and measures. This was a deliberate move to ensure a coherent and dependable monetary system across all states. The framers recognized the significance of having a unified currency to foster economic growth, promote interstate commerce, and strengthen the nascent nation.

In conclusion, while the Federalist Papers do not extensively delve into the specifics of the monetary system, they do underscore the importance of a sound and centralized currency under federal control. The framers' intentions were clear: to create a dependable monetary framework that would support the economic development and stability of the United States.
 
I do not see any mention of the issue in Federalist No. 10. That paper appears to discuss the differences between a republic and a democracy:


However, Federalist 44 contains some pretty clear language IMO (bold emphasis is mine):
A Fifth class of provisions in favor of the federal authority, consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several states.1

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 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.

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 shew 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. ...


Seems clear that money was always intended to be gold and silver coin - created/minted by the States and regulated by the Federal Government.
 
What a great use of AI. I was thinking I was going to have to spend a month reading through them and as you can see, they speak in a manner that is a little more difficult to read at a 1st glance. For me anyway. LOL. Thank you for posting this.

What would be defined as a bill of credit nowadays? Is that like a bond issuance? If so then all the bonds that the state has issued are unconstitutional?
 
...
What would be defined as a bill of credit nowadays? ...

"Gold is money. Everything else is credit."

In constitutional law. A bill or promissory note issued by the government of a state or nation, upon its faith and credit, designed to circulate in the community as money, and redeemable at a future day. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 271, 9 L. Ed. 709; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 431, 7 L. Ed. 903; Hale v. Huston, 44 Ala. 138, 4 Am. Rep. 124. In mercantile law. A license or authority given in writing from one person to another, very common among merchants, bankers, and those who travel, empowering a person to receive or take up money of their correspondents abroad.

 
Back
Top Bottom