Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T20:29:16.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonial Monetary Standards Contrasted: Evidence from the Seven Years' War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Elmus Wicker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Seven Years' War warrants a reinterpretation of the colonial paper-money experiment. Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina with fiduciary standards issued large quantities of paper money to finance the war accompanied by only moderate increases in the rate of inflation. Massachusetts with its pure specie standard financed the war with interest-bearing debt and fared little better, if not a little worse. Success of war finance in Pennsylvania, New York, and South Carolina can be attributed to paper-money issues that financed government expenditures and were matched by imposition of tax labilities for early redemption.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 869 - 884
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Colonial currencies when expressed in colonial pounds will be written £000 colonial and when expressed in sterling £000 sterling.Google Scholar

2 West, Robert Craig, “Money in the Colonial American Economy,” Economic Inquiry, 16 (01 1978), pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Bullock, Charles J., Essays on the Monetary History of the United States (New York, 1900);Google Scholar and White, Horace, Money and Banking (5th ed., Boston, 1911), pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

4 Weiss, Roger W., “The Issue of Paper Money in the American Colonies, 1720–1774,” this JOURNAL, 30 (12 1970), pp. 770–84; and “The Colonial Monetary Standard of Massachusetts,” Economic History Review, 27 (Nov 1974), pp. 577–92;Google ScholarJellison, Richard M., “Paper Currency in Colonial South Carolina 1703–1764” (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1952).Google ScholarBrock, Leslie V., The Currency of the American Colonies, 1700–1764 (New York, 1975);Google ScholarPerkins, Edwin J., The Economy of Colonial America (New York, 1980).Google Scholar

5 E. James Ferguson referred to the process by which colonial goverments issued debt in the form of paper money which was redeemed subsequently out of taxes as the system of currency finance. “Currency Finance: An Interpretation of Colonial Practices,” William and Mary Quarterly, 10 (Apr. 1953), pp. 173–76.Google Scholar

6 The tax anticipation effect is supposed to work if households increase their saving to pay expected future taxes implied by the increase in redeemable noninterest-bearing debt. Only if the government deficit induces an equal concurrent increase in private saving will government expenditure have zero effect on aggregate demand. Barro, Robert, “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth,” The Journal of Political Economy, 82 (11/12 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Feldstein, Martin, “Government Deficits and Aggregate Demand,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 9 (01 1982), pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Sargent, Thomas J., “The Ends of Four Big Inflations,” in Hall, Robert, ed., Inflation: Causes and Effects (Chicago, 1982);Google ScholarWallace, Neil, “A Modigliani-Miller Theorem for Open Market Operations,” American Economic Review, 71 (06 1981), pp. 267–274.Google Scholar

8 Smith, Bruce D., “Money and Inflation in Colonial Massachusetts,” Quarterly Review Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Winter 1984), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

9 Ferguson, E. James, The Power of the Purse (Chapel Hill, 1961), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

10 Brock, The Currency of the American Colonies, pp. 466–67.Google Scholar

11 Dickson, P.G.M., The Financial Revolution in England (New York, 1967), chap. 3.Google Scholar

12 Hutchinson, Thomas, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, vol. 3, Mayo, Lawrence, ed., (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), p. 7.Google Scholar

13 Brock, The Currency of the American Colonies, p. 274.Google Scholar

14 Smith, Bruce D., “Money and Inflation in Colonial Massachusetts,” Quarterly Review Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Winter 1984), p. 274.Google Scholar

15 Bruce Smith included treasury notes in the money stock and explains the sixfold increase in paper money unaccompanied by an equivalent increase in the price level by the willingness of Massachusetts to impose taxes to retire debt generated by the issue of those notes. The existing evidence does not support Smith's claim that Massachusetts' 6 percent Treasury notes circulated as money. See also Ferguson, “The Power of the Purse,” p. 10.Google Scholar

16 Pinkerton, Danky, Statutes at Large of Great Britain, Anno 1761 continued to 1806, 20 vols. (Cambridge, 1762–1807); Currency Act of 1751, p. 308.Google Scholar

17 Table I is a public document reproduced from Jellison's, Richard M. Ph.D. dissertation, “Paper Currency” (see fn. 4). Column 2 is the same as column 2 of Table 3 which Jack Greene references as having been taken from Additional Manuscripts, 35909, f. 169, British Library, London.Google Scholar

18 Pencak, William, “Welfare and Political Change in Mid-Eighteenth Century Massachusetts,” in Marshal, Peter and Williams, Glyn, eds., The British Atlantic Empire before the American Revolution (London, 1980), p. 62.Google Scholar

19 Pencak, “Welfare and Political Change,” p. 52.Google Scholar

20 Nash, Gary B., The Urban Crucible (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Brock, The Currency of the American Colonies 1700–1764, p. 274.Google Scholar

22 There are formidable problems in estimating and interpreting the burden of the wartime taxes imposed to redeem paper money, not the least of which is estimating colonial gross product (CGP). I have converted Alice Jones' estimate of CGP per capita in 1774 to CGP per adult male with which to compare the figures in the bottom half of Table 3 for tax per adult male. These figures are annualized using the redemption period and data in Table 2 and converted into £ colonial using average exchange rates (Table 5). For what they are worth, the ratio of taxes per adult male to CGP per adult male are: South Carolina 9 percent, Massachusetts 2.4 percent; New York and Pennsylvania 1.3 percent. For Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, and New Hampshire the ratios were 0.5 percent or less. These estimates are too high inasmuch as 40 percent of expenditures were repaid from parliamentary grants.Google Scholar

23 West, “Money in the Colonial American Economy.”Google Scholar

24 West, “Money in the Colonial American Economy,” p. 6.Google Scholar

25 Cole, Arthur H., Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United States 1700–1861 (Cambridge, 1938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Rothenberg, Winifred B., “A Price Index for Rural Massachusetts,” this JOURNAL, 39 (12 1979), pp. 975–1001. Gary Nash in The Urban Crucible (p. 251) refers to an unpublished manuscript by Billy G. Smith where an index of food prices for Philadelphia's laboring classes is constructed. The price of nineteen “market basket” items are weighted according to their significance in the workers' diet. Between 1755 and 1763 the index rose by 29 percent, more than double the 13 percent increase indicated by the Rotheriberg index for 1755–1761.Google Scholar

27 Brock, The Currency of the American Colonies, preface.Google Scholar

28 Gwyn, Julian, “British Government Spending and the North American Colonies 1740–1775,” in Marshall, Peter and Williams, Glyn, eds., The British Empire before the American Revolution (London, 1980), p. 77.Google Scholar

29 Nash, The Urban Crucible, p. 133.Google Scholar

30 Julian Gwyn, “British Government Spending and the North American Colonies 1740–1775,” p. 82.Google Scholar