Reconstruction Act Of 1867

Where's the Civil War 150th Hype?

We wanted to explore our interests, and thankfully BNR provided me an outlet to do so. That began six and one-half years ago, and this is the 72nd installment since Chapter 10 ran in two parts. The result has been well-received and won five “Best Column” awards from the Numismatic Literary Guild. It’s also garnered for me personally a lot of newly found e-mail pals, and significant contributions to our discussions from an international reader base in print and on the Internet. I remain very grateful for this outlet. So I ask: Does anybody care about the coming four-year Civil War sesquicentennial? A half century ago, it was a big deal. When I was a youth, the Civil War centennial was everywhere. New commemorative stamps were issued periodically, and collector organizations formed around Civil War themes. New periodicals and books sprang up to sate this vast historical interest. Collecting Confederate currency and stamps and Civil War tokens became interesting diversions for school kids like myself who were already into philately and numismatics. I among others became deeply immersed in these fields. On my part, these exonumia and paper passions continue down to the present. So I’m eager to explore them in my twin roles as editor and publisher of the Society of Paper Money Collectors journal “Paper Money,” and the Token and Medal Society journal “TAMS Journal” during the coming four years. Soon (I promise) the emphasis of this column will return to Confederate topics too if my “grey” readers are still with me after those important matters were interrupted by the long and winding now 37-part journey through “blue” counterfeiting problems during the Civil War era.(2) And also, the recent two-column “wild card” interlude examining the rise and fall in popularity of the current $5 bill Lincoln image. But before we resume our survey of the history of Confederate currency collecting, which since we pioneered that topic in this column has become a vastly more popular subject,(3) let’s put what has been learned over the past three and one-half years through this column concerning counterfeiting in the country during the Civil War era into some perspective. After all, counterfeiting is a serious offense against the people of this country. It compromises the marketplace and steals from the “innocent” (of the crime of counterfeiting, at least) holders to whom the bogus bills last fall. But it is not only an assault on the commercial, and private sectors, but is also a basic affront against the sovereign, when the sovereign happens to be the moneyer, too. Before the feds grabbed up the money prerogative from the people and the states, paper money counterfeits were irksome only to the commercial and private interests of the nation. Since specie or government-issued interest-bearing Treasury notes were largely required for payments to the central government for customs, purchases of public land, etc. it wasn’t a “federal case” when the midnight pressmen trotted out their queer bank notes. Local law enforcement was the rule. But with the coming of the Civil War and the need for large amounts to suppress the rebellion, the tables turned because the central government (1) issued non-interest-bearing Treasury notes as a currency, and summarily reneged on specie payments; (2) then declared the central government’s fiat paper currency a legal tender; (3) proceeded to outlaw competing private and much public money issues; (4) made state-charted bank currency unprofitable to issue, coercing bankers into the system of national associations to the benefit of the national treasury; (5) and also taxed checks and other money substitutes as a public revenue measure. As we have shown over these many months through this column in print and on the Internet, the government that was big enough to grab the money concession in this country was hardly up to the job of supplying a tamper-proof product to the nation’s commercial channels. Time and time again the national currency was compromised and replaced. Despite tinkering around the edges with innovative papers, inks, and engraving methods, ineffective enforcement efforts produced the two decades of failure that befell the nation. This failure was due to poor legislation, corrupt law enforcement practices, inept sentencing and widespread pardoning. As spectacular as this clown show was for nearly two decades, still the nation went on, so the question persists in my mind: How ineffective were these efforts actually? Is this all just Monday morning quarterbacking at this point. Have we paid due deference to Teddy Roosevelt’s man in the arena with sweat and blood on his frame while he is assailed on all sides? The most frequent erroneous report continues to wildly misrepresent the extent of the fakery. Dear readers, one-third to one-half of currency in circulation was not (and never was) bogus, no matter who tells you so. In Parts 49 and 50 (July and August 2009), I attempted to bury this queer notion. Go back and reread those columns, especially Part 50.(5) Find one misstatement of fact or false logic in my argument and tell me about it. I don’t have a closed mind and am teachable, besides. Yet this professional malfeasance of the first chief of the U.S. Secret Service Col. William P. Wood persists, having been perpetuated by his successors and uncritical popular authors. It has now been thoroughly spread by the infinite echo chamber of misinformation by the worldwide web that keeps pounding this falsehood home. Truth is losing out to falsehood. As I’ve noted before, one of the benefits of electronic posting of this column on NumisMaster.com is that it attracts a broad readership that would never see it strictly within the printed pages of our beloved Bank Note Reporter. So before I lay down my pen on this penultimate chapter in this Civil War-era Legal Tender counterfeiting series, I’ll mention that a film maker was intrigued by one of the earlier chapters after he found it through an Internet search. No, it was not Robert Redford and the individual was not interested in making a film comparable to Redford’s recent The Conspirator, about Mary Surrat and the Lincoln assassination. He/she (the film maker uses initials, and I declined to do a phone interview) works for a Canadian production company working on a documentary series for the History Channel. The series is on “famous inventions.” “We will be producing 14 half-hour episodes for the series and each half hour episode will feature three inventions.  One of those inventions is the green ink that was invented to deter currency counterfeiting.  Your  ‘Feds Look to Second Anti-Photographic Ink’ article published on September 29, 2008, on  numismaster.com has been my greatest resource and so I was wondering if I could speak with you…” the filmmaker wrote. My reason for asking this is that the Treasury paid an extra surcharge for ABNCo’s patent green ink on note faces because it was thought to be impossible to separate chemically the black and green ink. But since there was no such necessity on note backs, which were all green, why would the Treasury pay extra for printing note backs green in the patent ink?  Why pay a double surcharge? In an earlier column, I erred describing COUNTERFEIT impressions on one of the fakes illustrated as having been “stamped.” BNR reader Joseph Boling dropped me a nice note to remind me bogus bills were branded with a hot iron, which often cut holes in the shape of the letters through a note. “Note that they are identical face to back – the brand burned through the note,” he wrote. But of course, Mr. Boling is indeed correct. Furthermore, a COUNTERFEIT NOTES clipping from the Aug. 12, 1865, issue of the New York Times, reads: “The spurious notes are easily detected and promptly branded ‘Counterfeit’ with an iron constantly kept heated for that purpose” in the U.S. Treasurer’s Office. Thanks, Joe. These counterfeiting columns have gotten “good press” as they say. Bill “found your article on Civil War counterfeiting a well-researched and fascinating article!” Richard L. Trawick wrote: “I read your recent article and was glad to see ‘common sense’ displayed by a professional writer. Your use of logic and thoughtful considerations should be lauded by almost anyone who has the ability to read today.” Meanwhile, I received a lengthy and wonderful e-mail from numismatist and scientist Dr. Peter Gaspar, chemistry prof at Washington University in St. Louis. Gaspar wrote in part: “Part 43 is one of the best articles I have read in the whole domain of numismatics (and I read widely) for years! I could barely get myself to return the Jan. ’09 BNR to the colleague who loans it to me every month. I am particularly interested in the techniques of banknote production, and your recent columns covering, inks, papers, etc. intended to thwart the counterfeiters have been a treasure trove of information. I only hope that you include this material in a book, for which I shall be at the front of the line to buy!… My main wish is that you keep up your wonderful research and writing, and that you will make it available to the numismatic community in more permanent, less scattered, book form. Thank you very much for the abundance of information, comprehensively illustrated, that you give us every month and for your writing skills that make your column so much fun to read!”(7) Longtime readers will remember that we launched into this series on Civil War era counterfeiting by examining fakes of one of my favorite notes, Series 1862-1863 $10 Legal Tender greenbacks, with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on them. Reader Eric Karell shared an addition $10 fake Legal Tender Note with this writer recently. It is shown here courtesy of Eric. The most interesting thing about Eric’s note to this writer is its back. Note the obscure ink notation in the upper left corner. It is largely undecipherable to this writer. I’ll guess it says “Fr 1253.” This could be a banker’s or law enforcement agent’s mark. Two years ago, I had another CF94 reported by another BNR reader Neal Z. Gechtman, which for reasons that are unclear to me at this point was never shown in this column although we had an extended correspondence concerning his note via email. Likely it was questions of the note’s reproducibility in the pages of BNR. At any rate, we’ll show it now as it is also a CF94. Both Neal’s and Eric’s bills are wretched, New Series 23, and with identical serial numbers. They don’t reproduce well, but are intriguing for another commonality they share. Check out the upper left corner of Neal’s bill, and see the same notation, “Fr 1253” or whatever. Closer inspection shows them to be the one and same note. So we have a provenance chain, albeit a short one, that may or may not include the notation of the man who determined the bill to be a fake at some distant point in the past. A fair counterfeit, calculated to deceive. Portrait of Lincoln lacks that fine, clear, life-like expression. Eagle scratchy. Green ink trifle darker than in genuine. Lathe-work defective. Shading of letters coarse. In green medallion counters, right and left of eagle, four green dots can be seen on genuine, left of fig. 1 in 10; on counterfeit only three dots. Excellent. Portrait of Lincoln slightly defective. Red figures trifle smaller than on genuine. Red ink somewhat blurred. Fine line under Treasury number, on genuine, if extended would strike directly under the words New Series. On counterfeit would strike near centre of the N. Check-letter D of this counterfeit is of ‘Act of March 3, 1863,’ dated ‘March 10, 1863,’ otherwise plate is same. Dangerous. Portrait of Lincoln well engraved, closely resembling genuine. Numbering well done, ink good. Lathe-work surround the 10’s, in green medallion, somewhat blurred and defective. There are nine counterfeits on this issue of 10’s, and all notes of this denomination of various series should be examined with care. There is also said to be a counterfeit $10, check letter A, on Series 19 of this issue.” From this listing it would appear that Dickerman was unaware of the Gechtman-Karell fake, or the other CF94s shown in this column. Elsewhere he also wrote: “Some of these $10 counterfeits are very dangerous, particularly those of the series 58. It is almost impossible to give an accurate description of this counterfeit, and the Treasury Department found it necessary to issue a photograph of it as soon as it was discovered. The counterfeits which we have seen are numbered 7, 19, 28, 52, 53 of the first issue of $10 Treasury notes.” The United States Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office) is the government branch that is supposed to provide an un-jaundiced view of government operations. Recently the GAO came out in favor of dumping the Salmon P. Chase paper dollar bill in favor of a dollar coin. This is hardly news, sharp government pencils have been advocating as much for decades, for a generation in fact. This column does not take a position on this changeover, but the GAO is all washed up in its reasoning. I obtained a copy of the report, and Appendix II outlines the underlying presumptions used in making the case for the changeover. This appendix is titled “Design of GAO’s Economic Model and Detailed Results for the Base Case and Alternative Assumptions.” One of these underpinnings, “Lifespan of notes,” caught my eye: “Median of 40 months.” Just two months ago here in Part 69 I reported on note lifespans in discussing the impact of the new $5 portrait based on the most recent figures by the Federal Reserve Board.(8) The Fed, which is responsible for the currency circulation, says one dollar notes last 21 months.(9) Why this big discrepancy? Was somebody cooking the books—and for what possible reason? The GAO rationalizes its estimate by “Our analysis of data from BEP and the Federal Reserve indicates an average lifespan for notes of 32 to 40 months. We chose the upper end of that range because of upcoming process changes at the Federal Reserve that are expected to increase the lifespan of notes.”(10) Why a longer note life expectancy in this study? Could it be because the GAO in Table 3 also reveals another key presumption? The replacement ratio figure calls for “1.5 coins to 1 note.” Its very expensive (relatively speaking) to mint a dollar coin as compared to striking off a paper dollar.(11) Slower velocity of replacements lessens the number of replacements, and brings down the overall replacement costs predicted. Voila, the “savings” figures grow, I surmise. Whatever the mathematics of the figuring, I ask you now: How did a standard dollar note’s service to this country multiply from 21 months to 40 months except by a little bureaucratic creative figuring? Figures don’t die, but liars can figure too, eh? No wonder the feds can’t pay our bills and mis-guesstimate national expenses and revenues daily. It’s the MO inside the Belt Way. Changing over to dollar coins may be a capital idea. But just maybe, somebody with a bigger calculator than mine up there on Capitol Hill should recalibrate those “savings” before we saddle our people and this economy with the Sacagawea dollars and her offspring. As we collectors remember, Silver Certificates were born because people did not want to tote pockets full of heavy 19th-century silver dollars around. Charolette Murphy followed these articles and wrote: “I’ve read some of your articles; and would like to ask a question. I have a one dollar bill issued by the American Bank Note Co. of New York, with a date of Aug. 10, 1861, Payable by the Asst. Treasurer of the U.S. at New York, etc. Your articles state the denominations were all Five Dollars and above (which referred to the Demand Notes). Were there none printed in the amount of One Dollar?” As always, I welcome feedback from BNR readers. We cover a lot of ground in this column, and it’s surprising what sparks the interest of individuals. Questions, comments, cheers or jeers are welcome. You can contact me through my personal website www.fredwritesright.com or by mail at P.O. Box 118162, Carrollton TX 75011-8162. If you write and wish a reply, please include a self-addressed stamped envelope, but please be aware that if your subject is of interest generally it may be addressed in a future column instead. 1. Before I get more hate mail (yes, even numismatic writers, who do not aspire to become numismatic Jack Andersons, can step on sore toes; note to colleagues don’t ever call Confederate paper money “trash” unless you are willing to rhetorically engage with a certain rabid readership), please take into account dear reader that I say this as an amateur historian who is unconvinced that the Civil War was necessary, advisable, or waged well. I say this also as an amateur economist, who deplores the bigging of the government and monopolization of the money prerogative set in motion as “military necessity” by the Lincoln Administration and his cohorts in the Republican Congress. And remember, too, I am also a Lincolnphile, who has written two very adulatory books on Old Abe in the last couple of years. 4. According to a contemporary government agent Lafayette C. Baker: “The consequences attending this whole course of insane action by the Treasury Department, culminated in flooding the land with counterfeit Government currency. Scarcely was the ink dry…before its bogus counterpart appeared in circulation.” Lafayette C. Baker, History of the United States Secret Service, Philadelphia: by the author, 1867, p. 381.

Radical Members of the South Carolina Legislature - Graphic Arts

Graphic Arts has two copies of this photograph of the 1868 South Carolina legislature, one slightly larger, 16 x 13 cm and one with a caption 7.5 x 5.5 cm.

The composite image documents the implementation of the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which redesigned the governing bodies of the southern states after the American Civil War. Not only did African Americans have the right to vote, but also serve within the government. When South Carolina rejoined the Union in 1868, they had the first state legislature with a black majority.

Created to frighten the white population, this image was widely distributed in many sizes and formats. One of our copies includes the text: These are the photographs of 63 members of the reconstructed South Carolina Legislature, 50 of whom are negroes or mulattoes and 13 white. 22 read and write (8 grammatically), the remainder (41) make their mark with the aid of an amanuensis. Nineteen (19) are tax-payers to an aggregate amount of $146.10, the rest (44) pay no taxes, and the body levies on the white people of the State for $4,000.00.

The Reconstruction Act of 1867

Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction, Documents and Essays

Vision

African American History for Dummies

The American nation, primary sources