Talk:Executive Order 6102

message: We need to make this page easier to find. I read a PDF of the original announcement distributed by the Postmaster General and so no mention of 6102. I suggest creating a "Gold Confiscation Executive Order" article that redirects to this one, or something similar. I don't know how to create one though. 137.201.247.20 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several similar redirects to this article already:  US Gold confiscation • U.S. Gold confiscation • Gold Repeal Resolution • United States Executive Order 6102.  I think you need to create an account and use that to be able to create redirects (and pages).  —EncMstr 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: I don't know if we should say so baldly "the dollar was devalued to 69.3%".  Against what?  Rice? Palladium?  Wood?  This is true against gold.  I don't know...was it usual in 1933 to measure the value of paper currencies only against gold, as the US WAS fully or partially on the gold standard...?  I suggest we add "...against gold" to the sentence.  What do others think?Chris. Fulker 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right -- the wording was incorrect. The dollar was devalued against its former value as equivalent to $1 in gold. It was devalued by 41% or it was devaluted to 59% of it is former value. See previous section.--Otheus 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The dollar was devalued by the Federal Reserve. In layman's terms; the Fed had x dollars of gold in it's possesion that it could lend against. Then one day they decided that they had 1.69x dollars of gold to lend against. The Fed created money out of thin air (which is the sole function of the Fed). More gold on the books ment the Fed could lend (i.e. print) more money. The dollar was devalued by 41% because the Fed pumped %69 more fiat money into the economy cause inflation. Think of it as a 41% tax on the American people that year. It's supply and demand, increase supply without increasing demand and the value goes down. Understand economics if you are going to talk about them. 137.201.247.20 (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dollar Devalued...?

message: Toward the end it says "...Gold Clause Resolution of 1933, which makes unlawful any contracts which specify payment in a fixed amount of money or a fixed amount of gold" Does "fixed amount of money" really belong there, the implication is that all fixed-price contracts are unlawful. Does the term "money" mean something different here than the common usage? If so it should be clarified, if not, removed. Herostratus 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused on this matter as well.  I haven't been able to find any specific information on the Gold Clause as of yet but if someone does have this information maybe you could correct it.  It would also be good to create a article for the resolution if were going to have a link for it.Mantion (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the contract says I can pay you $1000 or 1 ounce of gold, for say, a used car that you will deliver 1 months from now, then that's what it covers.  If gold is $1100 when delivery time rolls around, I'd pay you in USD.  If gold is $900, then I'd pay you in gold.  Such contracts cancel out federal reserve tinkering with the value of money, restoring the stability to the value of money.  The US government doesn't want this, because they rely on the fed being able to control the money supply, inflating and deflating at will. Gigs (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: fixed price contracts unlawful?

message: FYI:  I've been having trouble with User:Esoule who has been editing elsewhere under circumstances in which there is a clear conflict of interest.  I thought to check that user's edit history and I noticed an edit to this article from 30th November 2007 in which that user added:
: "On the evening August 15, 1971 in New Orleans, Louisiana, James U. Blanchard, III and Evan R. Soulé, Jr. founded the National Committee to Legalize Gold (NCLG) in response to President Nixon's announcement that the United States was abandoning the gold standard. Over the next several years, the NCLG waged a national campaign to enable American citizens to again own gold in any form. The campaign included repeated national mailings and regional press conferences in which the U.S. Treasury Department was challenged to act when an illegal bar of gold bullion was displayed to the newsmedia. The NCLG hired a 1926 Steerman bi-plane to continuously fly over Washington, D.C. during Nixon's Inauguration in January 1973 with a banner that read "LEGALIZE GOLD" -- an action which received national publicity. In New Orleans in February 1974, the NCLG held the largest (up to that time) privately-sponsored monetary symposium entitled "Investing Towards Freedom". That symposium further galvanized actions in support of proposed Congressional legislation to legalize private ownership of gold in any form. Several decades later, derivatives of that first symposium continue every Fall in New Orleans."
(Note my highlighting).
You might want to investigate the accuracy and relevence of this (somewhat autobiographical) addition in the light of this editor's history.
SteveBaker (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about an executive order to end the gold standard.  The above information though interesting isn't really proper in this article.  I suggest someone making a new article about the NCLG or PL 93-373 and include the above information.Mantion (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The EO is not about ending the US gold standard (which continued until 1971) but about preserving the Federal Reserves holdings of gold. Rod57 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest concerns.

message: In the book "Investing in Gold and Silver" by Michael Maloney it mentions Executive Order 6260 as the one that outlawed ownership of Gold.  From doing a little bit of research, I guess 6260 succeeded exec order 6102. -- Suso (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 6260

message: I substantially added to the clarity and factuality of this article by citing the two most important gold cases in the 1930s, the Frederick Barber Campbell case and the Josefowitz case (1936). I also deleted two paragraphs on monetary policy which appear to have to been written with the view of explaining the rationale for the order but really were just unclear and more or less irrelevant to the subject matter.
Also, I think it is important to address the false "gold seizure" rumors which are very widespread on the internet so I added a section to debunk those myths. I should also mention that I read every issue of the New York Times in April of 1933 for mentions of this topic of which there were several. The gist of these articles is basically that the gold turn in was voluntarily. There is absolutely no mention of safety deposit boxes being seized in any issue of the New York Times during the month of April 1933. Also, it is worth mentioning that in June or July of 1934 Time Magazine had an article on gold turn ins to the Treasury stating the substantial amounts of gold turned in since the enactment of the Reserve Act on January 30th, 1934. This article reinforces the voluntary nature of the turn ins.
John Chamberlain (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False Rumors, Frederick Barber Campbell, etc

message: I don't think it says anywhere if this is still in effect today or if it's not being enforced anymore. Shadowcelibi (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The last paragraph of the lead reads The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed ... legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars and certificates ... December 31,1974. —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Still in effect?

message: What is the gold clause in the US Constitution?Mulp (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  Like a lot of things, they make it up as they go along...all in the "national interest", of course.RRskaReb talk 04:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitution's gold clause??

message: Nothing is said about the reasons. A opening paragraph about it, why actually this act was introduced? ~~Merewyn  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.124.19 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason was to ensure that the us dollar maintained its value (aka so it did not inflate during the depression) - since gold and silver were the primary forms of currency beyond dollars, by restricting these -> they ensured dollars would be used instead.  Also it helped keep big businesses and banks from converting their wealth into gold/ silver during hard times - which would have spelled the end for the dollar.  --74.69.2.116 (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have sources for those reasons and logic please. Was there any public discussion of the justification in 1932/33 ?  Also, EO6102 only mentions gold and not silver so maybe the reason was more to do with the US trying to maintain the gold standard ? Rod57 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text:  ... Transcript of FDR radio broadcast FDR says "What, then, happened during the last few days of February [1933] and the first few days of March? Because of undermined confidence on the part of the public, there was a general rush by a large portion of our population to turn bank deposits into currency or gold—a rush so great that the soundest banks couldn’t get enough currency to meet the demand. The reason for this was that on the spur of the moment it was, of course, impossible to sell perfectly sound assets of a bank and convert them into cash except at panic prices far below their real value. By the afternoon of March 3, a week ago last Friday, scarcely a bank in the country was open to do business. Proclamations closing them in whole or in part had been issued by the governors in almost all of the states."  FDR doesn't say what caused the undermined confidence but posssibly there were rumours of banks being near collapse. Rod57 (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text:  The March 6th proclamation declaring a 4 day bank holiday to reorganise shaky banks does mention silver as well as gold. The proclamation states that "speculative activity abroad in foreign exchange has resulted in severe drains on the nation's stocks of gold". (possibly USA had issued too many paper dollars causing inflationary pressures requiring US to deliver gold to maintain the gold standard of $20/oz gold) Rod57 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Opening para could say that the EO6102 followed on from the March 6 proclamation that essentially froze gold and silver holdings. Rod57 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text:  Great Depression says "One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time, the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by the Federal Reserve Act, which required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes. A "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", particularly when they only had enough gold to cover 40% of the Federal Reserve Notes outstanding. During the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 making the private ownership of gold certificates, coins and bullion illegal, reducing the pressure on Federal Reserve gold.[28]" Rod57 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Removal of the constraint on the Federal Reserve is surely the main rationale for the executive order, as per the preceding para. As this is currently missing from the article, I propose to incorporate it via an appropriate edit Clivemacd (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons?

message: The article headline "Invalidation and reissue" suggests that there were no consequences to the prosecution of  Frederick Barber Campbell, but later in the article, it is made clear that the feds came in and confiscated the gold anyway! A better title might be "Lawyer's Gold Confiscated."
106.56.135.47 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Approximately 500 tonnes of gold were sold to the U.S. Treasury in 1933 at the rate of $20.67 per troy ounce
A "sale" is a voluntary act between two willing parties, and the Executive Order 6102 confiscated privately owned metal and gave them what the government determined was compensation.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "500 tonnes sold" text 

message: Australia was by no means the only other country to have such a law. Britain, for example, had a similar law, though I'm not sure of the dates (1931(?)-1980 (?) ). I wonder if someone who is well informed on the subject could add a list (with relevant dates) of other countries that have had similar laws. Norvo (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I should mention that the Australian law is still in effect, merely suspended. Its' operation could theoretically be resumed at any "expedient" time should Australia's "currency or public credit" be threatened. But yes, it would be good for someone to include details on similar laws in the UK and elsewhere. Any takers? 110.149.165.69 (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Similar laws in other countries" is very thin 

message: Not sure if this request would be appropreiate for this article, but I would be interested to learn what the American Publics reaction to this Executive Order was. That is, were people accepting of it due to the destructive nature of the Great Depression? Were there violent protests? Did news outlets cover it negatively or positively? Did they cover it at all, or was it barely a blip on their radar?
I'm only vaguely aware of this Executive Order in a modern context, and it is usually a topic which I only hear it brought up in a negative conditions (with the Nixon follow through in '71, and the Ford repeal in '74), I'd be very interest to know how it was received by the public at the time. Did any elected officials attempt to put up resistance against the EO, or speak out against it after it's enactment, or was it seen as a good thing?
It may be difficult to keep personal opinions at bay for a section like this, but I think it would do some good in giving a historical perspective to the reader. Sawta (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section request - Public Reception 

message: ″The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($648 today[4]).″
That’s wrong. The given reference is not supporting this false claim. As far as I know 1 ounce in the FED books is still 35$. Ju52 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price of gold 

message: A ban on gold was in force from 1939 to 1979 in Britain. The section should be re-written. 2A00:23C7:99A5:9E01:6589:2D50:1E5F:D49B (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a re-write