Cowen focuses on the first six years of the First Bank's operations. The bank's internal records were long ago destroyed by fire, and as a consequence, no authoritative history of the institution has ever been published. Cowen brings together most of what we know about the bank from indirect sources and from a few scattered extant records. The author offers two original arguments linked to the First Bank. Previous explanations of the price decline pointed primarily to the financial difficulties of William Duer, a major speculator in securities and their derivatives.
Interested parties can read all the details there.
I think Cowen is correct in identifying the First Bank as a major culprit in causing the sharp decline in bond prices. I believe the language surrounding this sharp drop in securities prices has been irrespons1bly exaggerated. I hope readers do not think I'm engaging in petty criticism over a minor issue because what we call things does matter. Overall there is too much journalistic hype in financial history, and this author has poured more gasoline on the flame. Cowen's second original argument relates to the long-running debate about whether the First Bank was, or was not, a central bank.