Does Collecting Certain Coins Create an Ethical Dilemma?

I supposed if they both saw everything the same way there wouldn't have been a Civil War. I don't know the details of how these facilities were funded back then, but (unlike today) I would expect that each state contributed significantly to the construction...making the question of ownership...questionable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, the reason they started on cents and half cents was the bond issue. Yet, the cents and half cents were legal money, and were copper.

I guess I simply agree with Conder's reading of the intention of this clause, meaning its intent was to simply give the Fed the exclusive right to coin and determine what is US money. Remember, there were multiple state mints in operation at the time, and conversions were a major impediment to interestate commerce.

 

It depends on your point of view...in some ways they are right. The reason is not because of how the war itself began but because of why it began. Slavery is what everyone points to but it is deeper than that. The US...especially back then was a nation of two very different economies and ways of life. The North was very industrial and production based. The South was very much based in agriculture. With these different economies...came different ways of doing things. The North wanted the South to continue it's economic output but change a lot of how they did it (ex: abolish slavery). Ultimately, Southern states began to secede because of Northern pressure to change their ways of life. Once that had begun...war was inevitable. So, one could argue that the Civil War was rooted in Northern pressure (aggression) against the Southern economy.

 

I have a few gold crowns, guess it is my emergency fund...LOL

 

"Technically, half cents did not have legal-tender status, a factor that contributed to their unpopularity. Although the Mint struck more than 63,000 half cents in 1811, they were widely rejected. Many merchants refused to take them."

http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=21377

 

I only desire that the sacrifices of the men and women that gave their lives, some 600,000+ will have been enough to satiate the desire for violence and destruction in America. Alas, I ponder though with the rhetoric of late, that perhaps those ultimate sacrifices were 150 years peremptory, and indeed that more will be on the horizons. Now it is less sectional than before, and more vulgar and divisive politic.

 

Interesting. I didn't read the source of them not being legal tender though. If the US government authorized their striking, and accepted them as payment, what other aspect of "legal tender" is missing? Acceptance under law commercially? I wonder why that was.

Thanks for the article.

I guess to me, if the Fed strikes a coin for commerce, dictates it as coinage, and accepts it and gives it as payment, I am simply wondering how its not "legal tender" since the Fed is the only authorized to determine what is legal and what is not.

Chris

 

No it doesn't. Once again it stops the STATES from making anything except gold and silver legal tender. It does not stop them from accepting other things in payment of debts, and that includes whatever the FEDERAL government decides will be legal tender.

And the coinage of those state mints ended in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted and the states lost to right to create money.

Legal Tender is a tricky concept and it does not mean the same thing today as it did back then. Today the courts recognize legal tender as a legal attempt to satisfy a debt, but the creditor is not obligated to accept it. If he doesn't the debt is still present and other means may be agreed upon to settle the debt. However since a legal attempt has been made the creditor may not add interest, late penalties etc to the debt from the time the attempt was made. Back before the mid 20th century legal tender was taken to mean a form of payment that MUST be accepted when offered. The courts basically took it from a MUST to a MAY.

As for the government striking a coin and it not being legal tender, the early coppers were viewed as a token of convenience to help with the flow of commerce. They were not give legal tender status and they could be accepted or rejected at the whim of the buyer/seller. Usually since there were chronic shortages of coins this was not a problem, but when the FE cents flooded commerce in 1857 merchant had way more cents than they needed, and so did the banks. So the banks began rejecting them which made it even worse for the merchants so they started rejecting them. Suggested reading Fractional Money by Neil Carothers.

 

What about coins made by mint employees for personal gain? Or ones that were allegedly stolen from the U.S Mint? I don't see a problem with the WTC coins or any other unless it funds nefarious people and/or causes. Coins are a tangeable piece of history. Someone must preserve these little pieces of history, good or bad. If we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it.

 

Let me jump back to the original question of this thread for a moment. I have a thought. For the most part...it has been established that coins from "evil empires" are just coins. They don't have any evil in them...they were just produced and one could make an argument in some form that every country has "evil" ties in someone's eyes. That said...I think there are certain coins that walk this line a little more than others. Take for example this one, what do you think of it.

This is a 1940-A 10 Reichpfennig Military Occupation Coin. These coins were issued by the German government for circulation in conquered lands that were being occupied by the German Military. So, this coin was minted because of the need for circulating German coinage in lands that Germany had invaded in the early part of WWII. This is the only example I have in my collection...but I think this is a very ominous looking coin and for me it begins to walk the line. IMHO, it's almost creepy looking.

​

 

And that's exactly why people want to collect it. Creepy yes, but also fascinating.

People are fascinated by history, and certain parts of history, as ghoulish or abhorrent as they may be, generate lots of interest. I don't see someone's desire to collect these coins as an endorsement of the Nazi regime, any more than I think someone who watches CSI endorses murder.
There's kind of a morbid fascination with these types of coins that makes them popular. Now if an individual is uncomfortable collecting coins minted by a country or government that they view as evil, that's their choice and I can respect that as well.

 

I think this is exactly why I collect coins like these...I love history and not all of history is good. This coin is truly an artifact of a world that no longer exists (as someone said earlier in this thread). In fact, this coin is one of the prizes of my collection and is a true conditional rarity.

 

I think the toning of that coin makes it more ominous to you, as well as maybe your connotations of the swastika. Even accounting for that, yes to have to use such coins after being conquered by Germany would have been not a good feeling.

If you want to see a coin that, in the eys of who was supposed to use it was terrifying, look at a coin of Pontius Pilate. He is a major reason for the first Jewish rebellion. Jews were not allowed to show any items on their coins that were used for, or could be used for, worship. Pilate comes along and places clear pictures of implements used to worship Roman gods on coins for Israel. This was probably one of the greatest affronts he could have made to the Jews, since every day on their coinage they were insulted.

Lots of history, good and bad, on coins. The Pilate is collected because of his mention in the bible, I bet most people who own them do not realize how gravely insulting they were for the Jews. The ancients, though, knew the power of images on coins, so we know Pilate was intentional in his insults.

Chris

 

When the Nazis decided to colonise Ukraine and annihilate all of the inhabitants who were not Aryans, they printed up a series of currency that was in all Ukrainian. But that was pushing it, so they never released the notes and printed up a new series for 1942:



This note is in my collection because it does have a lady on it, but it is also from Ukraine, a country I have lived in and travelled in quite a bit. I hate this note, really, but then it is a reminder of that stark period in Ukrainian history from 1920-1960 when they were overrun by Germans, Poles, and Russians. Nazis tried to wipe out the whole Slavic population, Stalin tried to wipe out the bourgeoisie elements which included any race. And the Poles just wanted to expand their territory deep into the heart of Ukraine - at least no ethnic cleansing on their part.

Notice the strategically placed usage of German. Ukrainian, not Russian, is the second language on these notes and it is restricted to the lower part of the reverse. Frankly telling the Ukrainians where they fit into the new order. The Nazis planned to eradicate most of the population in time, and enslave the rest. As bad as the communists of the USSR were, even they were welcomed as saviours when they recaptured Ukraine.

 

Interesting, I didn't know that. I actually know very little about the Nazi paper money.

Another interesting fact...we actually modified the German coinage once the war ended and occupation began. We obviously didn't want the Nazi coinage production continued (I doubt the Germans did either)...so their coin designs were quickly changed and "allied occupied coinage" was issued.

Here are examples. The first was a standard Third Reich issued zinc 1pf dated 1944-A. These were issued from 1940-1945. Notice the Swastika very prominently on the obverse.

​

Once we controlled Germany, we modified the design to remove the Swastika. There was a pattern 1pf (dated 1944-D) which was produced that simply had the Swastika missing. There is only one known example of this coin. Then, the pattern was again modified and a tail was added to the eagle to fill the gap. These were issued from 1945-1948 in denominations of 1pf, 5pf, and 10pf. Here is an example from my collection...I'm sorry for the poor image of the reverse. It is a 5pf and dated 1948-A.

​

 

Coins and paper money with the swastika circulated up until 1948 when the Reichsmark was replaced at 10:1 to the Deutschmark. For a very brief period after the new notes were released into circulation in the western zones, the RM was still circulating in the eastern zone - albeit with adhesive stamps applied, these circulated until the new notes printed by Goznak in Moscow arrived.

Those interim coins from 1945-8 are fairly scarce.

 

They certainly did remain in circulation and legal tender...my point was the new production coins were changed to remove the symbol. These are somewhat scarce...this example is a Berlin minted coin (A) which is the most common...but it is a very nice MS which is a conditional rarity. It has quite a bit of luster as well and not a lot of spotting.

 

Article 1, Section 10:

NoState shall ... coin Money; ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...

I think it's pretty clear that the States could not disburse copper or paper in payment of debts, and if they couldn't pay out anything but gold and silver, why would they accept paper or copper? Moreover, they couldn't coin their own money. So the Federal government by default couldn't arbitrarily declare other monetary media to be legal tender given this restriction that was placed on the States.

 

Indeed. Great Britian also had their legal reasons to define the signers of the Constitution as having committed treason. Unfortunately for them, they did not prevail when the guns were pulled out.

South Carolina outlined exactly why they felt they were entitled to leave the Union and the logic behind it. If you have never read the document, here it is. It is a fascinating historical read because it puts together the case relative to the formation of the Union as a result of the Revolutionary war. Here it is if you have never seen it.

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War South Carolina

In the end, on soverign matters, what is legal is decided by the one with the biggest gun.

---------------------------------

I think it is OK to collect coins from any part of human history, good or bad. Coins remind us of that history and we when it comes to the bad we certainly don't want to forget what happened.

 

WHOA ! Lincoln was engaged in the deadliest conflict ever on American soil, how could he not "recognize" the opposition ? Sorry, but this just got weird guys. Who can say exactly why he carried the note ? Maybe he was afraid he would be captured and could use the cash to expedite a a message ?? Publicized reasons might not be truthful.

Back to the thread. I see nothing wrong in collecting any money, or anything else for that matter. Personally, things like shrunken heads, grotesque pics of bodies, etc. are not things I want, but they are collected. Nazi coins ? I don't have any, but I got some other war memorabilia. Collect what you enjoy with a clear conscience. IMHO

gary