Talk:United States Note

message: In Juilliard vs Greenman the Supreme Court of the United States settled the ongoing and very heated debate on if the restriction of issuing Bills of Credit was also extended to the Federal government:
United States Notes are Bills of Credit as that term is used in the Constitution.
The first $2 notes are Continentals and are nine days older than America. On June 25, 1776, the Continental Congress authorizes issuance of the $2 denominations in “bills of credit” for the defense of America. https://www.uscurrency.gov/history | http://eh.net/encyclopedia/money-in-the-american-colonies/
There are so many minor errors in this article being made in ignorance of Juilliard vs Greenman I am not going to bother trying to edit it just to have changes reverted. Kindly correct your own work. The Supreme Court trumps most citations from other sources, like Mises, for example. Christopher Theodore (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this was already mentioned by the court in Hepburn, 14 years prior.  The Demand Notes of 1861 were Bills of Credit and nobody challenged them since the Tyler administration had set the precedent under Secretary Spencer.  The to-do was about forcing people to accept Bills of Credit as a legal tender for debts contracted prior to the 1862 legal tender laws.  This is actually a kinda sleepy little article and I doubt your changes would be reverted - give them a try!  --LondonYoung (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Notes are Bills of Credit 

message: I removed some sections that were obviously biased against the Fed, but I think this article still needs a review by someone with more knowledge in this area. --Phirazo 06:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was not biased against the Fed.  It was merely information about United States Notes and its ideological support by American Statesmen.  There was nothing about the Federal Reserve in the article!  It seems to me above poster is intentionally trying to seek out anti-Fed bias and reaching for something that doesn't exist.  I am going to undo the edit as it looks very uncalled for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.160.18 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have addressed this concern and attributed the quote directly to its author.  LondonYoung (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Though the figure of $300,000,000 is often cited as the total amount of greenbacks 
allowed by statute. This is incorrect. The correct figure is $346,681,016. I have added the citation to the 1906 New York Times article that gives this as the figure of as of the resumption of specie payments. The treasury website themselves gives the round figure of $300,000,000 but note well they are speaking in round figures. Plain and simple the government source is wrong this time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlmg (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is a bit more subtle than this.  The law was that the Treasury was authorized to issue up to $300,000,000 but was also required to reissue any notes it received.  Since the outstanding total was $346,681,016 the treasury could not issue new notes (since they were already over the limit) nor contract down to the limit (since there was no authority to retire any notes).--LondonYoung (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You are correct.  Once they rolled out the Federal Reserve Notes, they mainly used $5's to meet the USN circulation requirement.  Five's were the very last issue of large size USN's, and relying on the five continued when the small size was adopted.  But they got tired of printing USN fives after they wore out and just decided to finesse that ole' circulation requirement by packing a bunch of 100's into the basement of the NY Fed.  Fluff?  I dunno, up to you.  Online you may find this useful, http://www.uspapermoney.info/general/chron_s.html , but The Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money by Hessler and Chambliss is pretty complete ...    LondonYoung (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote above that a legal requirement to keep some minimum of USN's in circulation does not appear in the article.  This should be fixed.  Zaslav (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the paragraph beginning "In June 1874 ..." LondonYoung (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: $300,000,000 is incorrect

message: Is anyone actively working on this page? The page is almost entirely unsourced. Kbs666 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to begin the process of fixing this page. It will take me a while, but there should certainly be an article on this topic.  LondonYoung (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should definitely be a topic but there is a lot of stuff, first three paragraphs of the history section for instance, that has no place in an encyclopedia unless some sources can be found. Kbs666 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the need for sourcing there, and I also think these comments hint too broadly on the fiat currency debate rather than issues specific to United States Notes.  I'll get to it.LondonYoung (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I started work on this.  I am not a fan on references in the intro; will add them as I attack the body.  LondonYoung (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Have failed to find anything about an S.G. Fisher after trying, so out the quote goes for now--LondonYoung (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Lincoln exaggerated Taylor's significance in a personal letter he wrote to him, but the historical record is clear, so bye-bye sentence about E.D. Taylor's involvement.--LondonYoung (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims 

message: Hi. I've just made this edit. The statement I removed is false in that there are differences between US notes and FED notes. E.g. FED notes incur interest, whereas a US note does not as it's backed my silver or gold. Correct? --Fenvoe (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a VERY technical point, but I don't disagree with you.  But note - the statement you removed was a direct quote from the Treasury itself!  (See Ref. 13 of the current article.)  What the Treasury should have said was that they felt no further need for those few monetary functions not served by FRN's that could be served by USN's.  To issue FRN's, the Fed must purchase assets (in a tradition established by the National Banking System), but the Treasury can just print and spend USN's as it pleases (subject to congressional limitations).  Since the UST is issuing bonds galore right now, and the Fed is buying up those and a host of junk assets as part of the bailout, it doesn't look like we'll face a need for USN's again in our lifetimes.  --LondonYoung (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FED note superceeds US note 

message: The claim that "The Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to issue a paper currency" has no source, and is known to be false misleading, in that Federal Government does have the power to issue a paper currency, as found by the courts, even if there is no explicit grant of that power in the Constitution.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, this is old damage from an anonymous IP, so I changed it back to the way I originally had it.  LondonYoung (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution 

message: A personal (or at least unreferenced) term "national-debt-free-money" has been inserted by a single issue IP who appears to be using WP to complain about the national debt. I've reverted it. IP, if you want to discuss this, do it here. Major changes to an article, not to mention pushing a new political view, needs to be discussed with other article authors.  (It appears from this editors' talk page that he has a lot of these sorts of problems on other articles, and does not really understand WP, or is unwilling to use WP's style.) SBHarris 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of POV junk 

message: They were mainly issued in $2 and $5 denominations in the Series years of 1928, 1953, and 1963. There was a limited issue of $1 notes in the Series of 1928, and an issue of $100 notes in the Series year of 1966, mainly to satisfy legacy legal requirements of maintaining the mandated quantity in circulation.
I've read somewhere that a pair of $10 and $20 United States Notes, series 1928, were printed and displayed at the 1933 World's Fair. They were never issued into circulation. Is this true? I'm not sure why they were created -- maybe there was talk of formally issuing these denominations? --76.115.67.114 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Such notes were printed.  In currency jargon these are called "Essay" notes.  An Essay is a printed design for a note which never goes on to be actually issued.  Currency designers printed lots and lots of essay notes so that treasury officials could see what the notes would look like if they actually decided to issue them.  The book "US Essay, Proof and Specimen Notes" illustrate the essays you are talking about here.  --LondonYoung (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Small-size $10 and $20 notes?

message: I have added scans of small size 1928 $1, $2, and $5 United States Notes, all SN#1. I replaced lower resolution images. These are all part of the Treasury Department collection which resides in the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian. Please let me know if this poses a problem. I scanned the notes myself and have their permission to use the images. - Godot13 (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Upgrades

message: Created table to illustrate 1928 $1, $2, and $5 (as opposed to prior stacking of images. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Created Series of 1928 Table

message: Would there be any objection to adding an illustrated table with a nearly complete typset of United States Notes (Legal Tender), 1862-1923, all very high-res?-Godot13 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete image set 

message: A complete denomination set of Series 1880 United States Notes have been nominated for Featured Picture. Comments are welcome through 14 October 2014, or just have a look.--Godot13 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Series 1880 United States Notes]] 

message: The concept of "legal tender" is a key one in talking about money supply, and there is an article not linked to from this one.
Janosabel (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insert Link to "legal tender" article 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:US-$1-LT-1880-Fr-29.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 28, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-10-28. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: I dispute that these are known as Legal Tender Notes. I am asking for sources for this allegation, or I want it removed.
I have not once ever seen the term capitalised and used as a synonym for any US currency, This article is starting to suck. I'm willing to work on removing the crap but not enough time to write content for it.User:Pedant (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "AKA Legal Tender Notes"