PCGS Reclassifies Early American Fugio Cent As Regular Issue Federal Coin

Article VII of the new Constitution was clear on this:


The new Constitution only applied to the states that ratified it. States that didn't ratify it would remain the nominally independent countries that they were under the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. Those four recalcitrant states nominally continued under the rule of the Articles, though what this would have meant if the Congress did not and could not meet under the Articles is largely theoretical. The old Congress did continue to try to meet after the Constitution was ratified by the ninth state in June 1788, but found it harder and harder to attain the necessary quorum (which was at least two delegates from at least nine states). It met with a quorum for the last time in October 1788.

Rhode Island rejected adopting the Constitution in a referendum in 1788. It was only the threat of being the only rejectionist state and thus entirely cast out of the new Union and involuntarily becoming a fully independent country that saw their legislators hastily convene a "ratifying convention", which only very narrowly agreed to ratification.

Article 13 declares that the Articles could not be edited or changed unless all 13 states agreed to the changes. So the Articles theoretically remained active and in place in Rhode Island (and in the other 12 states) until they, the 13th state, ratified the "alterations" in the form of the replacement Constitution.

So on this question...


...between June 21 1788 and May 29 1790, the "United States" was one country, but with two "rival" systems of government. Modern experts believe that opponents of the new Constitution could have tried to mount a legal challenge, but nobody at the time cared enough to try.

As I said, nobody "cared" enough about the Articles to try to figure all that out. With no "national judiciary" operating under the Articles, I assume somebody would have had to bring a case to each of the oath-breaking state courts, and win in each state - all the while, the new Congress was meeting and actually getting things done.

Nobody thought the Articles were good, and worth defending. Everyone at the time agreed they were defective and needed to be extensively edited and/or replaced. The recalcitrant states weren't "in favour of the Articles", they simply didn't like the proposed replacement Constitution and were holding out for a better deal. I suspect that one of Rhode Island's complaints, being the smallest state, was that the proportional representation model proposed for the House would give them only one seat there, while the bigger states would get 8 or 9; this was a considerable "demotion" from their status in the unicameral Congress under the Articles, where each state only got one vote each, no matter how many legislators were in the state delegation.

Nope. Quebec (Canada) got a mention as being automatically admitted to the Union if they requested it; all other applicants had to be put to the vote by Congress and ratified by unanimous approval.

Vermont did not attempt to apply for admission to the US under the Articles. Kentucky did apply, but Congress rejected the application on the grounds that the new Constitution had already been approved and was awaiting ratification, and they felt that Kentucky ought to join the union under the Constitution, rather than under the Articles.

If I ever acquired a Vermont coin, I'd file it under "V" in my world coin collection. I do own a British colonial Virginia halfpenny, which is also filed under "V".

Vermont almost definitely was, since it wasn't actually one of the 13 colonies that signed the Articles of Confederation in the first place.
I'm not 100% sure whether it was covered by the Declaration of Independence, though I have a strong suspicion that maybe also not?

Virginia was probably technically an independent country for a few months in 1861, but this is irrelevant for this discussion of the situation in the 18th century. I agree that in the 18th century it went from part of the British Empire straight to part of the United States without any independence in the middle.

A very interesting topic for discussion. From the debate about whether to consider Fugio Cent a federal issue, we came to a discussion about the interpretation of the constitution.

I have a few questions. If you allow me, I will ask them (they may seem silly to you, but I'm sorry, I don't know much about US history).


.

What 6%, what 20 years. This is a coin whose purpose is to pay for goods and services. What kind of investments are we talking about ?


.

What?I have always considered them legitimate means of payment. What happened in 1864 and 1965? The big centers were remembered only in 1864 (during the Civil War?). And did you remember up to 1/2 cent only in 1965?


.
I correctly understood that in the distant 18th century there were 2 constitutions.
1)The Constitution written by the Continental Congress (until what period was it in force ? before September 17, 1787?)
2)The US Constitution that we know to this day(What should I call it?).

"Legal tender" is not the same as "legally issued", "recognized as currency" or "authorized". "Legal tender" status has a very specific definition: that a law has been written which prescribes and proscribes what amounts of debt the coins in question can and cannot be used for. If no such law has been written, the coins are not "legal tender" - even though they are issued by the government, and widely accepted for their face value. In 1965, America passed a law declaring all coins ever issued by the United States to be legal tender for the payment of any amount. Some of those coins already had active legal tender clauses, others (such as Half Cents) did not.

To demonstrate the principle of "legal tender" and how it works in different countries, let's consider three hypothetical situations.

1. You visit America, and go to Sharkman's restaurant. You order a $20 meal, and eat the food, then go to pay for it afterwards. You have incurred a debt, which you must pay using legal tender. In America, all coins and notes are acceptable for any amount, so you can use any American coin to pay that debt. You can use a $20 note, or two $10 notes, or 2000 once cent pieces - it's all equally acceptable to clear your debt, and Sharkman has no legal right to demand you not pay your bill in 1 cent pieces. If he refuses your payment that's his problem - as far as the law is concerned, you attempted to pay the debt using legal tender, and he refused to accept payment; he's the one who voided the contract by refusing payment.

2. You visit Australia, and go to Sapyx's restaurant. You order a $20 meal, and eat the food, then go to pay for it afterwards. You have incurred a debt, which you must pay using legal tender. In Australia, there are proscriptions on which coins and notes you can use to pay this debt: banknotes ($5, $10, $20, etc), you can use however you wish. For coins, you can use up to ten $1 coins, ten 50¢ coins, and up to $5 in coins of lower denomination. Which means that in my restaurant, you cannot pay your $20 bill in 5 cent pieces. Or rather, you can try to pay your debt in 5 cent pieces, and I can choose to accept them if I choose to, but I have every legal right to say no, I won't accept your 400 5 cent pieces as payment of your debt. And that's not my problem, that's yours - you're the one with the debt, you're going to need to find the necessary legal tender for me to accept.

3. You visit Scotland, and go to a restaurant owned by a Scottish person. You order a £20 meal, and eat the food, then go to pay for it afterwards. You have incurred a debt, which you must pay using legal tender. In Scotland, the legal tender laws of United Kingdom coinage apply: £1 and £2 coins in unlimited amounts, 50p and 20p coins only up to £10, 10p and 5p coins only up to £5, and 1p and 2p coins only up to 20p. Banknotes are more complex, as Britain does not have a unified central banknote-issuing authority. Scotland actually has no legal tender banknotes, though both Bank of England notes and Scottish bank notes are widely accepted as money and are legally recognized as currency.

"Legal tender" laws do not come into play in regular commerce, where you go into a shop, pick up some goods to buy, and go to the counter to pay for them. Since you haven't actually incurred a debt yet, you and the shopkeeper can negotiate whatever payment method you wish, and if you can't agree on the payment method, then you've got to leave the goods on the counter and walk away. Contrary to popular belief, "legal tender" status of a coin or banknote does not mean a shopkeeper is legally compelled to accept it.

@sap those are interesting points but you are wrong about #1. The business in your example has no legal obligation to accept payment all in one cent coins. Straight from the Federal Reserve:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs...cy_12772.htm



Federal code says dollars have to be accepted as legal tender, but does not mandate what forms of dollars must be accepted. You might find a state law that says otherwise, but I'm not sure that there is one. If a business wants to be clear about it, post a sign, like the "no bills over $20" you often see at convenience stores.

People do try it out of spite. Trying to pay a fine at a government office in pennies is a common example. There was a recent case where a shop owner paid a former employee his last paycheck in 91,500 cents, by dumping them in his driveway. The US Department of Labor is suing the employer for retaliation.