Mark Twain's opinion of "In God We Trust" on coins

I just received the new Mark Twain Commemorative $5 gold coin.


United States $5 2016 Mark Twain Uncirculated Commemorative Coin

Mark Twain's opinion of the "In God We Trust" motto is well known.

But I think it would better read, "Within certain judicious limitations we trust in God," and if there isn’t enough room on the coin for this… enlarge the coin.

Someone at the mint had a sense of humor.

Notice the initials to the right of the motto, which have a well known meaning.

Of course, they are the designer's initials.

Of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And the designer is??

Don Everhart. Whats the well known meaning of "DE"?

 

He's talking about the BS initials in between we & Sam's shoulder Lee

 

Twain's other opinion on the coin text... ?

Collectors are gonna collect, and haters are gonna hate.

I'm not a collector of this coin. Sorry, it just does not represent Clemens in any way for me, nor the views and period of history he represents.

And it should have been minted (at least first) in silver...

LETTER FROM MARK TWAIN

Carson City, November 7, 1863

EDS. ENTERPRISE: This has been a busy week - a notable and a historical week - and the only one which has yet passed over this region, perhaps, whose deeds will make any important stir in the outside world.

Some dozens of people in America have heard of Nevada Territory (which they vaguely understand to be in Virginia City, though they have no definite idea as to where Virginia City is) as the place which sends silver bricks to the Sanitary fund; and some other dozens have heard of Washoe, without exactly knowing whether the name refers to the Northwest passage or to the source of the Nile - but when it is shouted abroad through the land that a new star has risen on the flag - a new State born to the Union - then the nation will wake up for a moment and ask who we are and where we came from.

They will also ascertain that the new acquisition is called Nevada; they will find out its place on the map, and always recollect afterwards, in a general way, that it is in North America; they will see at a glance that Nevada is not in Virginia City and be surprised at it; they will behold that neither is it in California, and will be unable to comprehend it; they will learn that our soil is alkali flats and our shrubbery sage-brush, and be as wise as they were before; their mouths will water over statistics of our silver bricks, and verily they will believe that God createth silver in that form.

This week's work is the first step toward giving the world a knowledge of Nevada, and it is a giant stride, too, for it will provoke earnest inquiry. Immigration will follow, and wild-cat advance.

(Complete letter and other writings found here)

http://www.twainquotes.com/18631107t.html

 

Theodore Roosevelt believed that it was sacrilege to have God's name on a coin that might be used for vice.

 

It is unappropriate to put TGWT on a coin dedicated to Mark Twain, and particularly with a vulgar pair of letters. Going back to the pre 1909 E PLURIBUS UNUM, or nothing, would be better since Twain's language skills did not need latin to glorify his remarks.

 

And it should have been minted (at least first) in silver...

The US Mint website is announcing the sale date of the silver commemoratives as February 1, 2016.

 

He believed it was sacrilege because its use causes the user to swear a false oath to God. He's right. The population of this country has NEVER put its entire trust in God rather than Mammon.

 

I'm not religious but this is true. The meaning of "seperation of church and state" has been distorted by those who have an agenda

 

I also think this particular phrase/line has a lot to do with the situation in England at the time. Remember, the King of England was also the leader of the Church of England.

 

For quite a time, about a hundred years or so the majority of the population of England didn't share the state religion of the monarch. That despite prohibitions against their faith and meetings. Even their majority was replaced in the 17th century by puritanism, calvinism, etc that just served to boil over in the manifestation of the English Civil War.

Inasmuch as religion and it's discussion is a very divisive topic in the 21st century it was very much different and much more hostile a topic in the 16th and 17th century. I like to believe our founding fathers were very forward thinking in recognising religion's place while respecting the varying beliefs.

 

@scottishmoney , I took British History in College. It was a very interesting class and I likely forgot most of the details...lol. What I do remember is the continual changing of rule in the Kingdom. Protestant, Catholic, Protestant...etc.

I also believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, once a new King gained power, the opposite religion was in great peril.

 

We are a country founded by an anixt against religious persecution. This is why the seperation is in the first ammendment. It wasn't meant to mean that government should have no religious voice or principles to live by only that it should not create a state of "this is our religion and by way of you being an American it is your religion too"... it's about giving the choice to the individual. That's what ticks me off about this whole PC movement in regards to school coaches and players praying for instance. Levying sanctions upon people for this goes against every fiber (or skin cell technically) that the constitution and bill or rights was written on. And this is coming from an agnostic at best (me)

 

Henry VIII - well he went schismatic and declared himself head of the Church of England. Persecuted all and anything in his way.
Edward VI didn't really rule long enough, never was in majority age wise anyway.
Mary - got the name "Bloody Mary" because well, she was Catholic and disfavoured her father's creation of the Church of England.
Elizabeth - publicly Protestant, publicly anti-Catholic - but actually fairly tolerant of Catholicism as long as it was kept under wraps.
James VI(I) was born and baptised Catholic by his mother Queen Mary of Scotland but she quickly lost custody of him and he was brought up Presbyterian. Didn't really engage in persecution.
Charles I born and raised Presbyterian but as soon as his father's corpse was cold he was in London and professing Church of England. Pretty much forgot his Presbyterian roots and his Scottish birth and only was crowned in Scotland 8 years into his reign. This reign saw the rise of puritanism, calvinism etc with all the resultant further divisive conflict. Incredibly did have Catholic support in Ireland of all places. He didn't take a vow of marital bliss or chastity as he fathered 27 illegitimate children - the descendants of which are still the scions of British aristocracy to this day - Camilla Parker Bowles is one of them.
Charles II though a professing Protestant, Church of England was actually fairly tolerant of Catholics, well he was married to one ie Mary of Modena. But religious intolerance on the part of the hierarchy in Britain was at a near apex in acts of violence. He is alleged to have converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.
Commonwealth - pretty intolerant of anything other than Church of England and not much of that either. Did put the English phrase "God With Us" on coinage though.
James VII(II) Raised by Mary of Modena as a Catholic but was probably more a political Catholic than a practicing Catholic. Created quite a stir by saying he was going to be tolerant of the Church of England all the while allegedly promoting Catholics into positions of power. His daughters, Mary and Anne were raised as Protestants and would be instrumental in his ouster.
Mary -Protestant, married to William of Orange, a scion of Protestantism in the Netherlands. Of course she and her husband saw to the ouster of her father from the throne. Claim of Right and Bill of Right were passed in 1689 preventing Catholic rule in England and Scotland.

Until the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 Catholicism was legally subject to persecution in Britain.

 

@scottishmoney, so I remembered correctly on a few of them. Thanks for posting the details. Brings back memories. I took the 300 level British History class when I was a freshman. My prof was an admitted Marxist. He was very cool. We also read and reviewed Robinson Crusoe from a Marxist economic perspective. It was very fun.

Funny that I went on to get a BS in Economics. I'm purely a capitalist, FWIW.

 

Some of my personal favourite political nutwhacks were political science professors. I wonder sometimes that their real agenda was to make you the opposite of what they appeared to be.

 

This guy reminded my of a cross between a gnome and a gremlin. He had a long pointy nose that bent downward at the end. He was very interesting to talk too and his class was one of my most enjoyable while at school.

 

Well I'll be! Thank Goodness it wasn't a snake or I'd be dead!

 

There is not one subject in the Universe that consumes more energy to create and maintain than that of tenet.