1873年的恐慌和“长期萧条”(A)

R. Bruner
{"title":"1873年的恐慌和“长期萧条”(A)","authors":"R. Bruner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3233302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1878, President Rutherford B. Hayes must decide whether to sign the Bland-Allison Act and commit the United States to minting silver coins and thus return to a bimetal standard of currency. At issue is whether to grow the nation's money supply to sustain its galloping rate of economic development, or to constrain the money supply growth to enable the country to return to the international gold standard at the pre–Civil War parity to the British pound. National sentiment immediately after the war had been on the side of currency deflation, but the Panic of 1873 marked a turn in sentiment toward inflation. These cases focus on how and why that turn occurred, and its consequences. Excerpt UVA-F-1824 Rev. Sept. 23, 2020 The Panic of 1873 and the “Long Depression” (A) In February 1878, the US Congress passed the Bland-Allison Act and delivered it to President Rutherford B. Hayes for his endorsement into law. The act required the government to purchase silver each year and to coin it into currency. Signing this act would recommit the government to a bimetal monetary standard linking the dollar to gold and silver at the ratio of 16:1, valuing each US dollar at 16 ounces of silver or 1 ounce of gold. Arguments for and against this law stemmed from the financial legacy of the Civil War: massive debts, suspension of government specie payments to service those debts, and the huge issuance of greenbacks, the paper currency that the government used to pay for the war. “Hard-money” people hated inflation and federal indebtedness, which in 1866 amounted to USD2.32billion (compared to USD64.7million in 1860). They sought to return the country to the gold standard at the prewar parity to the British pound—this would require retiring the greenback currency and committing to a policy of resumption, meaning returning to its practice of paying with gold the interest and principal on its debts. “Soft-money” people wanted to expand the money supply enough to sustain the American economy's growth. The Bland-Allison Act was a stroke on behalf of inflation. Which side should Hayes favor? The decision reflected far more than monetary economics. The United States was in the throes of unrest that strained the Republican Party's political dominance, which it had held since the Civil War. Labor unrest in the industrial centers of the country had peaked in 1877 with bloody violence and fears of a communist uprising. Sectional divisions between the industrial and agricultural regions of the country had prompted the formation of new political interest groups: silverites, the Grangers (farmers), the Greenback Party, labor unions, and miscellaneous reform groups (Exhibit1). And an extremely close vote in the presidential election of 1876 had effectively ended Reconstruction in the South and begun the Jim Crow era of suppression of African Americans' human rights and civil liberties. How had these developments related to the Panic of 1873 and the economic policies of the government? Did these developments portend a major realignment of US politics? Any decision on the Bland-Allison Act would position the president and his party in the changing political field. Hayes would need to gauge carefully the history of the Panic of 1873 and other events that led to the Bland-Allison Act, as well as the implications of that act for his party and the American people. . . .","PeriodicalId":447021,"journal":{"name":"TransportRN eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Panic of 1873 and the \\\"Long Depression\\\" (A)\",\"authors\":\"R. Bruner\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3233302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1878, President Rutherford B. Hayes must decide whether to sign the Bland-Allison Act and commit the United States to minting silver coins and thus return to a bimetal standard of currency. At issue is whether to grow the nation's money supply to sustain its galloping rate of economic development, or to constrain the money supply growth to enable the country to return to the international gold standard at the pre–Civil War parity to the British pound. National sentiment immediately after the war had been on the side of currency deflation, but the Panic of 1873 marked a turn in sentiment toward inflation. These cases focus on how and why that turn occurred, and its consequences. Excerpt UVA-F-1824 Rev. Sept. 23, 2020 The Panic of 1873 and the “Long Depression” (A) In February 1878, the US Congress passed the Bland-Allison Act and delivered it to President Rutherford B. Hayes for his endorsement into law. The act required the government to purchase silver each year and to coin it into currency. Signing this act would recommit the government to a bimetal monetary standard linking the dollar to gold and silver at the ratio of 16:1, valuing each US dollar at 16 ounces of silver or 1 ounce of gold. Arguments for and against this law stemmed from the financial legacy of the Civil War: massive debts, suspension of government specie payments to service those debts, and the huge issuance of greenbacks, the paper currency that the government used to pay for the war. “Hard-money” people hated inflation and federal indebtedness, which in 1866 amounted to USD2.32billion (compared to USD64.7million in 1860). They sought to return the country to the gold standard at the prewar parity to the British pound—this would require retiring the greenback currency and committing to a policy of resumption, meaning returning to its practice of paying with gold the interest and principal on its debts. “Soft-money” people wanted to expand the money supply enough to sustain the American economy's growth. The Bland-Allison Act was a stroke on behalf of inflation. Which side should Hayes favor? The decision reflected far more than monetary economics. The United States was in the throes of unrest that strained the Republican Party's political dominance, which it had held since the Civil War. Labor unrest in the industrial centers of the country had peaked in 1877 with bloody violence and fears of a communist uprising. Sectional divisions between the industrial and agricultural regions of the country had prompted the formation of new political interest groups: silverites, the Grangers (farmers), the Greenback Party, labor unions, and miscellaneous reform groups (Exhibit1). And an extremely close vote in the presidential election of 1876 had effectively ended Reconstruction in the South and begun the Jim Crow era of suppression of African Americans' human rights and civil liberties. How had these developments related to the Panic of 1873 and the economic policies of the government? Did these developments portend a major realignment of US politics? Any decision on the Bland-Allison Act would position the president and his party in the changing political field. Hayes would need to gauge carefully the history of the Panic of 1873 and other events that led to the Bland-Allison Act, as well as the implications of that act for his party and the American people. . . .\",\"PeriodicalId\":447021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TransportRN eJournal\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TransportRN eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TransportRN eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1878年,卢瑟福·b·海斯总统必须决定是否签署《布兰德-艾利森法案》,并承诺美国将铸造银币,从而恢复双金属本位货币。问题在于,是增加国家的货币供应以维持其飞速的经济发展速度,还是限制货币供应的增长,使国家能够以内战前与英镑的平价回归国际金本位制。战争结束后不久,国民情绪一直支持货币紧缩,但1873年的恐慌标志着情绪转向了通货膨胀。这些案例关注的是这种转变是如何以及为什么发生的,以及它的后果。1873年的大恐慌和“长期大萧条”(A) 1878年2月,美国国会通过了《布兰德-艾利森法案》,并将其提交给海斯总统批准成为法律。该法案要求政府每年购买白银并将其铸成货币。签署这一法案将使政府重新承诺采用双金属货币标准,将美元与黄金和白银以16:1的比例挂钩,即1美元相当于16盎司白银或1盎司黄金。支持和反对这项法律的争论源于内战遗留下来的金融问题:巨额债务,政府暂停支付这些债务,以及政府用来支付战争费用的纸币——美钞的大量发行。“硬通货”派痛恨通货膨胀和联邦债务,1866年联邦债务达到23.2亿美元(1860年为6470万美元)。他们试图让国家回归到战前与英镑平价的金本位制——这将需要废除美钞,并承诺恢复政策,这意味着回归到用黄金支付债务利息和本金的做法。主张“软货币”的人希望扩大货币供应量,以维持美国经济的增长。《布兰德-艾利森法案》是对通货膨胀的一次打击。海耶斯应该支持哪一方?这一决定反映的远不止货币经济学。当时,美国正处于动荡的阵痛之中,共和党自内战以来一直占据的政治主导地位受到了削弱。1877年,随着血腥暴力和对共产主义起义的恐惧,该国工业中心的劳工骚乱达到了顶峰。该国工农业地区之间的局部分歧促使了新的政治利益集团的形成:silverites, Grangers(农民),绿背党,工会和各种改革团体(见图1)。在1876年的总统选举中,一场势均力敌的投票有效地结束了南方的重建,并开始了压制非裔美国人人权和公民自由的吉姆·克劳时代。这些发展与1873年的大恐慌和政府的经济政策有什么关系?这些发展是否预示着美国政治的重大调整?关于布兰德-艾利森法案的任何决定都将使总统和他的政党在不断变化的政治领域中处于有利地位。海耶斯需要仔细衡量1873年大恐慌的历史,以及导致《布兰德-艾利森法案》的其他事件,以及该法案对他的政党和美国人民. . . .的影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Panic of 1873 and the "Long Depression" (A)
In 1878, President Rutherford B. Hayes must decide whether to sign the Bland-Allison Act and commit the United States to minting silver coins and thus return to a bimetal standard of currency. At issue is whether to grow the nation's money supply to sustain its galloping rate of economic development, or to constrain the money supply growth to enable the country to return to the international gold standard at the pre–Civil War parity to the British pound. National sentiment immediately after the war had been on the side of currency deflation, but the Panic of 1873 marked a turn in sentiment toward inflation. These cases focus on how and why that turn occurred, and its consequences. Excerpt UVA-F-1824 Rev. Sept. 23, 2020 The Panic of 1873 and the “Long Depression” (A) In February 1878, the US Congress passed the Bland-Allison Act and delivered it to President Rutherford B. Hayes for his endorsement into law. The act required the government to purchase silver each year and to coin it into currency. Signing this act would recommit the government to a bimetal monetary standard linking the dollar to gold and silver at the ratio of 16:1, valuing each US dollar at 16 ounces of silver or 1 ounce of gold. Arguments for and against this law stemmed from the financial legacy of the Civil War: massive debts, suspension of government specie payments to service those debts, and the huge issuance of greenbacks, the paper currency that the government used to pay for the war. “Hard-money” people hated inflation and federal indebtedness, which in 1866 amounted to USD2.32billion (compared to USD64.7million in 1860). They sought to return the country to the gold standard at the prewar parity to the British pound—this would require retiring the greenback currency and committing to a policy of resumption, meaning returning to its practice of paying with gold the interest and principal on its debts. “Soft-money” people wanted to expand the money supply enough to sustain the American economy's growth. The Bland-Allison Act was a stroke on behalf of inflation. Which side should Hayes favor? The decision reflected far more than monetary economics. The United States was in the throes of unrest that strained the Republican Party's political dominance, which it had held since the Civil War. Labor unrest in the industrial centers of the country had peaked in 1877 with bloody violence and fears of a communist uprising. Sectional divisions between the industrial and agricultural regions of the country had prompted the formation of new political interest groups: silverites, the Grangers (farmers), the Greenback Party, labor unions, and miscellaneous reform groups (Exhibit1). And an extremely close vote in the presidential election of 1876 had effectively ended Reconstruction in the South and begun the Jim Crow era of suppression of African Americans' human rights and civil liberties. How had these developments related to the Panic of 1873 and the economic policies of the government? Did these developments portend a major realignment of US politics? Any decision on the Bland-Allison Act would position the president and his party in the changing political field. Hayes would need to gauge carefully the history of the Panic of 1873 and other events that led to the Bland-Allison Act, as well as the implications of that act for his party and the American people. . . .
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信