South Carolina lawmaker wants separate currency for state

In my opinion, we'd fall apart.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You can't pick and choose the parts of a sentence that you don't like. The entire sentence taken as a whole means that states can't coin money unless they produce it in silver and gold AND accept it for payments for debts. (including payments to the state)

It was specified this way because it prevented the states from creating fiat currencies. The framers of the Constitution did not want another fiat currency used in the USA because during the Revolutionary war, England flooded the USA with a huge amount of counterfeit colonial script that wiped out the finances of everyone. However they had to allow the newly formed states the right to create their own coins. In those days, local currencies were a necessity because transporting money from the US Mint to the remote areas of the 13 states slow, difficult and often dangerous. States were given this right but they had to do it in a responsible manner which was only gold and silver coinage.

It should be noted that the Constitution has been amended many times, but this clause has not been altered.

 

Try again, what the sentence says is that they can't make anything but gold and silver coin a tender. That means they can't DECLARE something else to be legal tender. It has nothing to do with actually being able to produce those legal tender gold and silver coins. And the earlier clause specifically forbids them to create money. That right is restricted to the Congress.

 

As I said above, the state legislatures of Utah and SC disagree with your interpretation. The states were absolutely allowed to create currency after the constitution was written just as they did during colonial times. It as a necessity due to the lack of any transportation other than horses for most of the country.

 

Folks, your not going to win any argument's on this subject . There are both legal points for and against " Secession " . The Courts are so divided and each side has it's own interpretation's and merits . It's a terrific story to follow . None of us are in any position to have the " final " word on this issue .

 

Once DC takes something away 99.9% of the time it won't return.
Gold 4 sure !
but silver may have the best chance.
Silver $20.00 coin Canada is trying it now in a few areas

 

So what states coined money after the Constituion? I am not aware of any from a state except during the Civil War. Utah coins were minted by the Mormons before statehood. Yes, many states had banks that printed bills, but as far as I ever heard they were not deemed "legal tender" by any state. They were basically promissory noted from that bank, and people used them as currency, but none had legal tender status as far as I know.

Could you please cite examples?

 

I am not aware that any states actually produced coins because there were no reasonable sources of gold/silver until gold was discovered in Charlotte around 1802 or so. With that discovery a private mint opened in Charlotte and produced gold coins until the US Mint opened a branch there in 1838. The Mint opened a Charlotte branch for the same reasons I gave above. Transporting gold coins across the country was dangerous, slow, and very expensive. There was another mint opened in GA around the same time for the discovery there. At that point it was a non-issue.

However because the states didn't do it, doesn't mean they didn't have the right to do so as they contend now.