I'm Taking God Off Our Money

[R. S. Martin]

In all fairness, US residents first coined the term "American" so it's ours to do with as we choose.

 

I also have never heard Canada or Mexico refer to themselves as "America" or "American" to the best of my knowledge, so why make an issue of a non-issue?

 

Besides, it sounds better to say I'm an American than I'm a United Stateser

 

If you read my post carefully you can see that I am not complaining about the word American. No one else wants to be called by that name. What I am complaining about is that Americans talk about how things are done in America as though the United States of America constituted the whole of America. It feels like I am shoved off the continent because I don't live in the US. The States constitute but a portion of this continent. And the continents were named long before the US existed; Americans have no monopoly on that word. As stated, there's a huge chunk of North America north and south of them, and then there's another whole continent south of that.

 

QUESTION: When people from the UK, Australia, or some other continent that is not part of North and South America talk about going to America, where do they think they are going?

 

When I read that kind of statement I think they mean anywhere in these two continents. Or the place in these continents where their relatives live whether that is in Brazil or Alaska or anywhere else in this strip of land.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I'd like to know it.

 

About Statesers sounding weird. That is exactly what we call them in PA German. Schtaetza. And the PA German-speaking Americans call themselves by the same name so far as I know. But let's not change that. In my mind, the Schtaetza are the horse and buggy people and the Americans are the regular automobile people who live south of the border.

 

I am really seriously confused. Why don't Americans say US if that is what they mean? We say Canada. We are not ashamed to use the name of our country. So what's the problem south of the border?

 

And then there's the United Kingdoms in Europe. I never hear anyone talking about this is how we do it in Europe when they mean UK. I cannot imagine Grandpa Harley daring to assume to speak for Europeans on here. Just imagine the feedback he'd get from Thurisaz. One's a Brit and the other's a German. Both come across to me as being rather proud of their heritage and as having due respect for the other.

 

So what's with the Americans that they assume to speak for everybody on these two large continents??? I just don't get it!

[Casey]

"The Legal Tender Cases were a series of United States Supreme Court cases in the latter part of the nineteenth century that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money. In the 1870 case of Hepburn v. Griswold, the Court had held that paper money violated the United States Constitution. The Legal Tender Cases reversed Hepburn, beginning with Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis in 1871,[1] and then Juilliard v. Greenman in 1884.[2]" (from the Wiki on Legal Tender Cases)

 

Don't really care about that one though do you?

 

Since you suggested it, mwc, I researched these cases. What emerged was a very nice piece of legal chicanery to put it mildly. Ironically the Chief Justice in Hepburn was none other than Salmon P Chase, of whom you may have heard. He had, albeit reluctantly, assisted in the drafting of Lincoln's Legal Tender Laws, thinking them perhaps a temporary wartime measure. Mr Chase was good enough to provide an excellent summation of the facts and figures involved:

 

On June 20, 1860, a certain Mrs. Hepburn made a promissory note, by which she promised to pay to Henry Griswold on Feb. 20, 1862, eleven thousand two hundred and fifty "dollars." At the time when the note was made, and also at the time when it fell due, there was, confessedly, no lawful money of the United States, or money which could be lawfully tendered in payment of private debts, but gold and silver coin. Five days after the day when the note by its terms fell due, that is to say, on Feb. 25, 1862, congress passed the first legal tender act, commonly so called, by which the United States notes issued thereunder were made a legal tender for "all debts, public and private, within the United States," except certain public debts. In March, 1864, Mrs. Hepburn tendered payment of the debt, principal and interest, in the United States notes issued under this act. The amount tendered, $11,250 in legal-tender notes, at that time was worth only about $7,000 in coin.

 

In other words, although the Greenbacks were (cough cough) supposed to be accepted at par with gold dollars, in practice they were discounted against gold dollars. Simple arithmetic shows one gold dollar would have bought $1.38 or thereabouts in Greenbacks by the time Mrs Hepburn payed off the note. Therefore (by further simple arithmetic), to have paid an equivalent sum in Greenbacks against what had been borrowed in gold dollars, Mrs Hepburn would have had to have paid not the $11,250 she had borrowed but $15,500. Thus Mr Griswold felt aggrieved; I dare say you would have felt the same way had I borrowed the same sum from you and gypped you of $4,250 when I repaid you.

 

Although Mr Chase had, as I have said, assisted in the drafting of the Legal Tender Laws, he nonetheless (along with the majority of his seven member Court) found them unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10 as aforesaid. To wit:

 

The court held that the language of the act of Feb. 25, 1862, making the United States notes issued thereunder "a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States," included pre-existing debts as well as debts which should be incurred after the passage of the act, and while it might be an exercise of rightful power in congress under those powers granted it by the constitution to declare war, suppress insurrection, raise and support armies and navies, borrow money on the credit of the United States to pay the debts of the Union, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare, to emit bills of credit or United States notes intended to circulate as money, and make the same legal tender for debts to be incurred after the passage of the act, yet inasmuch, as the act by construction declared these notes to be legal tender in payment of pre-existing debts, that the act was inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, and was not a law "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution the powers vested by the constitution in congress or in the government of the United States. The constitution reads that congress shall have, besides certain powers granted in express terms, "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or offices thereof." The court held that the legal-tender clause was unnecessary and improper. That the notes would have maintained themselves equally well without it. The chief justice quoted the fact that the three hundred million of dollars in notes issued by the national banking associations under the act of February, 1863, and the fifty millions of fractional currency issued under the act of March, 1863, were not made a legal tender, and argued that it was the quality of receivability for public dues, and not the quality of legal tender, which made these United States notes circulate as freely as they did. The chief justice declared that the act was obnoxious to those clauses of the constitution, also, which forbade the impairment of the obligations of contracts, the taking of private property for public use without compensation, and the deprivation of any person of his property without due process of law. And that the constitution was ordained to "establish justice," which this act did not do, so far as regards pre-existing debts.

 

Enter President Grant, who promptly appointed two further Judges to the Supreme Court, both gentlemen whom he knew to be in favour of legal tender laws, although Sam Grant said he knew nothing of it. As Mandy Rice-Davies said many years later, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" No matter, Hepburn was reversed, and the reversal was finally confirmed by Juillard vs Greenman in 1884.

 

What these cases ultimately did was to give the Government the right to rob anyone at any time simply by issuing paper money and declaring it to be legal tender. To wit:

 

Justice Strong, in delivering the opinion of the court, reiterated and enforced the arguments made by the minority in Hepburn vs. Griswold. He held that the distinction made by the chief justice in regard to the constitutional validity of the act as to debts contracted after its passage and debts contracted before, was not well founded, and that the fundamental question was, Can congress constitutionally give to United States notes the character and quality of money? If they can, then such notes can be made legally available to fulfill all contracts solvable in money, without reference to the time when such contracts were made, unless expressly otherwise provided. "What we do assert is, that congress has power to enact that the government's promises to pay money shall be, for the time being, equivalent in value to the representative of value determined by the coinage acts, or to multiples thereof." And that, therefore, all contracts calling for "dollars" simply can be legally fulfilled by a tender of the government's promises to pay dollars, by force of the legal-tender acts, without regard to date. And on this point Mr. Justice Bradley, in his concurring opinion, says: "So with the power of the government to borrow money, a power to be exercised by the consent of the lender, if possible, but to be exercised without his consent if necessary. And when exercised in the form of legal tender notes or bills of credit, it may operate for the time being to compel the creditor to receive the credit of the government in place of the gold which he expected to receive from his debtor. All these are fundamental political conditions on which life, property and money are respectively held and enjoyed under our system of government, nay, under any system of government.

(Emphasis in original)

 

With respect mwc, might I put it to you, that while a thing may be legal, that does not necessarily make it right? And let us not forget what Thomas Paine had said on the matter of legal tender laws many years earlier in his Dissertations on Government:

 

If any thing had, or could have, a value equal to gold and silver, it would require no tender law: and if it had not that value it ought not to have such a law; and, therefore, all tender laws are tyrannical and unjust, and calculated to support fraud and oppression.

 

Most of the advocates for tender laws are those who have debts to discharge, and who take refuge in such a law, to violate their contracts and cheat their creditors. But as no law can warrant the doing an unlawful act, therefore the proper mode of proceeding, should any such laws be enacted in future, will be to impeach and execute the members who moved for and seconded such a bill, and put the debtor and the creditor in the same situation they were in, with respect to each other, before such a law was passed. Men ought to be made to tremble at the idea of such a barefaced act of injustice. It is in vain to talk of restoring credit, or complain that money cannot be borrowed at legal interest, until every idea of tender laws is totally and publicly reprobated and extirpated from among us.

Casey

 

Lalor reference

 

Paine reference

[Vigile]

I am really seriously confused. Why don't Americans say US if that is what they mean? We say Canada. We are not ashamed to use the name of our country. So what's the problem south of the border?

 

Because US is not the name of the country. It is a descriptive term for how the country is formed: United States.

 

I will say it again slowly. The name of our country is The United States of America. Or, America for short. The word "of" is very imporant here as you can see.

 

When used in this manner it refers to the country, not the continent. The continent just happens to have a similar name.

 

I am an American. You are a Canadian. We, are North Americans. Simple.

 

Canadians who get in a tizzy over this have too much time on their hands.

[mwc]

With respect mwc, might I put it to you, that while a thing may be legal, that does not necessarily make it right? And let us not forget what Thomas Paine had said on the matter of legal tender laws many years earlier in his Dissertations on Government:

Very well researched. I also don't disagree with your conclusion. Being legal doesn't make it right. That's why I brought this case up. If this is about "problems" with our money then why not THIS problem too? The Constitution makes no provisions, as you may have discovered, for our paper money that we use in the manner that we use it. That's a later thing. So let's roll it all back to day 1. But this isn't about the Constitution. This is about the word "god." And this isn't about going through the system to see if the rules can be reversed but making some obtuse point by scratching out that word. So the money now reads "In --- we trust." We trust in a scratch/gouge? A very meaningful protest if ever there was one. I have to now guess as to what the point of it all is. Scratching off the entire phrase makes more sense than just the one word since it at least implies that none of it belongs and doesn't give the impression you're trying to single out a group. It's not great but a little more clear and less inflammatory (which is generally good in a "protest" of this nature).

 

I believe that my criticism of the "protest" is being taken instead that people should never do anything when something is "wrong." That you should always strive to work within the system (even if the system is "corrupt" and won't allow for change) and that "civil disobedience" is never an option. Instead I am saying that when someone does try to do something that might be considered "civil disobedience" that it should send a *clear* message to as many as possible (and not just the so-called "intelligent" people). Otherwise your message will be misunderstood and, as I already stated, be possibly seen as simple vandalism or an "attack" (like it or not "god" is a hot button word) on the people (whose support you really need to enlist to get laws changed through petition and such) instead. If that is the intended goal then I can't say I have a problem but I am left a little confused by the effort.

 

mwc

[Casey]

WARNING! I RELATE THE FOLLOWING AS A MATTER OF INTEREST ONLY AND I DO NOT ADVOCATE DOING THIS

 

It is said that in the last days of the Czar in Russia, after the Rouble had been heavily devalued as a result of both the Great War and Government policy, quite a few near perfect counterfeit notes appeared. These had, it appears, been made by students in protest at the decline in the standard of living this devaluation had caused. They had a slogan printed on them in tiny Cyrillic characters:

 

"This money is no worse than yours!" Let us hope a similar fate does not await poor ol' Bob Dollar.

Casey

[mwc]

WARNING! I RELATE THE FOLLOWING AS A MATTER OF INTEREST ONLY AND I DO NOT ADVOCATE DOING THIS

 

It is said that in the last days of the Czar in Russia, after the Rouble had been heavily devalued as a result of both the Great War and Government policy, quite a few near perfect counterfeit notes appeared. These had, it appears, been made by students in protest at the decline in the standard of living this devaluation had caused. They had a slogan printed on them in tiny Cyrillic characters:

 

"This money is no worse than yours!" Let us hope a similar fate does not await poor ol' Bob Dollar.

Casey

We can actually do quite a large number of things to our money...legally. We can even print our own and use it...if we can get others to take it (there is a group that does this now). And, if things are done in protest, then freedom of speech kicks in a protects us even further (depending on the action of course...there are limits). What AKR has done isn't illegal and, even if it fell into a gray area (or not) is well within his rights to do. I don't remember saying it wasn't. I just think it's silly and unfocused (which fall under my right to disagree/criticize...but it seems I have to defend my right a bit more than he does his...that's okay though) among other things I've mentioned.

 

Back to your issue. Yeah, I do hope that the dollar doesn't devalue to the point that counterfeits are basically a straight trade. People already melt our pennies and nickels since the metals are worth more. Maybe the great state of California will break away (by design or earthquake) and being the 5th or 6th largest economy we can go it alone? All hail the Presinator!

 

mwc

[Casey]

Anyway, to get back to the original topic, we Colonials too had religious slogans on our money up until 1966 when Decimal Currency was introduced. As an example, consider this Shilling, last minted in 1963:

 

 

For the benefit of those who can't read Latin, the inscriptions around the obverse rim read

 

Elizabeth II, by the grace of Gawd, Queen and Defender of the Faith (Fidei Defensor) Ironically, this last was a catholic title which had been granted to Henry VIII by the pope of the time. It has appeared on every British coin of the realm since that time, even though Old Harry took upon Himself and his successors the Headship of the Church Of England ... go figure! We-ell, I suppose he had to have something to do besides getting married six times and giving two of his exes a Decree Absolute in a spectacular, if somewhat bloody fashion.

 

This foppery was removed on Decimalisation, to the great consternation of some of our wowsers who now and then still bewail the lack of it. By contrast, this is a modern Decimal 20 Cent coin:

 

Casey

[Lycorth]

If you read my post carefully you can see that I am not complaining about the word American. No one else wants to be called by that name. What I am complaining about is that Americans talk about how things are done in America as though the United States of America constituted the whole of America. It feels like I am shoved off the continent because I don't live in the US. The States constitute but a portion of this continent. And the continents were named long before the US existed; Americans have no monopoly on that word. As stated, there's a huge chunk of North America north and south of them, and then there's another whole continent south of that.

 

Americans don't refer to North America at all nor do we think of it when we use the word "America" to refer to our country; we only think of the fifty US states.

 

I think you're a bit mistaken, here.

 

QUESTION: When people from the UK, Australia, or some other continent that is not part of North and South America talk about going to America, where do they think they are going?

 

Probably to the US, since most folks consider "America" and "United States" synonymous, and with good reason.

 

About Statesers sounding weird. That is exactly what we call them in PA German. Schtaetza. And the PA German-speaking Americans call themselves by the same name so far as I know. But let's not change that. In my mind, the Schtaetza are the horse and buggy people and the Americans are the regular automobile people who live south of the border.

 

That's what I've been trying to tell you

 

I am really seriously confused. Why don't Americans say US if that is what they mean? We say Canada. We are not ashamed to use the name of our country. So what's the problem south of the border?

 

We do say "US" when we wish to, or if "America" isn't clear enough. One means the other. "America" is the name of our country - that's why we use it.

 

And then there's the United Kingdoms in Europe. I never hear anyone talking about this is how we do it in Europe when they mean UK. I cannot imagine Grandpa Harley daring to assume to speak for Europeans on here. Just imagine the feedback he'd get from Thurisaz. One's a Brit and the other's a German. Both come across to me as being rather proud of their heritage and as having due respect for the other.

 

"America" refers to a country, not a continent. "North America" or "South America" refer to continents, not countries.

 

See what I mean?

 

So what's with the Americans that they assume to speak for everybody on these two large continents??? I just don't get it!

 

A better question is "what's with everyone else assuming that Americans presume to speak for everyone else?"

 

Frankly, the America bashing is getting old :angry:

[Oldjew]

I got an idea, why no place the word "Allah" over "God" on all paper money and the Muslims will get the blame for it. Even if a person were to so-called-deface bills and coins whose to know who did it if no one sees you? There is no way anyone will know even if you told them as they have to have proof to cite you for doing so. Or as a friend of mine did he made these little pieces of paper with the word "dog" on them and glued them directly to the bills.