A cynical use of U. S. coins. 0

[RWB]

WARNING! This post contains language which is historically accurate but which some might find offensive today.

Pierce M. Butler, along with brother John,  inherited a large Georgia rice plantation from their grandfather in 1822. This included 10,000 acres of rice and cotton land and almost 1,000 slaves. Pierce lived in Philadelphia leaving the plantation management to others. Between 1822 and 1856 he squandered about $700,000 plus his income from the plantations, and creditors began forced sale of his assets.

In 1858 he was selected by the President to serve on the government’s Annual Assay Commission at the Philadelphia Mint and was present for the coinage trials. In March 1859 creditors brought to sale all of the slaves and these were sold over a two day period at a race track near Savannah, GA.

After the sale, in appreciation of their work and devotion to him, Pierce M. Butler personally presented – in his gloved hand, of course – each freshly sold slave four new quarter dollars – one dollar in silver, total. These coins had been procured fresh from the Philadelphia Mint and sat in two canvas bags of $500 each on a table next to the former owner. As author Mortimer Thomson (aka “Q. K. Philander Doesticks”) wrote in his 1859 description of the sale in Savannah, Georgia:

"Leaving the [Ten Broeck] Race [Course] buildings, where the scenes we have described took place, a crowd of negroes were seen gathered eagerly about a white man. That man was Pierce M. Butler, of the free City of Philadelphia, who was solacing the wounded hearts of the people he had sold from their firesides and their homes, by doling out to them small change at the rate of a dollar a head. To every negro he had sold, who presented his claim for the paltry pittance, he gave the munificent stipend of one whole dollar, in specie; he being provided with two canvas bags of 25 cent pieces, fresh from the mint, to give an additional glitter to his generosity."

            Thus, the ignoble gentleman, took in $303,850 for flesh, and paid out to the same 436 chattel the generous sum of $436.

[NOTE: The quotation is from 1859 and entirely routine for that era. I was unable to learn when Butler acquired the bags of quarters or if they were bought direct from the Mint or a Philadelphia Bank.]

Sources:

Thompson, Mortimer, “What became of the slaves on a Georgia plantation? : Great auction sale of slaves, at Savannah, Georgia, March 2^nd & 3^rd 1859. A sequel to Mrs. Kemble's journal.” 1863. Originally published in the New York Daily Tribune, March 9, 1859, p.5, as “American civilization Illustrated. A Great Slave Auction.”

Kemble, Frances Anne. Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation in 1838–1839. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1863. (Frances Kemble was the former wife of Pierce M. Butler.)

Library of Congress.

National Archives and Records Administration.

Edited September 7, 2022 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

Your on-going archeological digs have found favor with me. Your dedication to research is laudable and I commend our hosts for sharing your finds with the membership.  

[GoldFinger1969]

Nothing there should be offensive to anyone. It's history. 

Interesting stuff.....but par for the era.  There were far worse countries to be a slave or an indentured servant or immigrant or impoverished family in.

I'm not sure how much of the $300,000 he got to keep.  It may have ALL gone to creditors.  I know very few plantation owners would have given slaves anything -- or factory owners their workers for that matter (pensions, healthcare, etc.).  Most people were subsistence farmers of that era.  I think it was sometime in the 1900's when the number of people making a living from OTHER than farming exceeded the number of those earning a living from farming (maybe 1900 or 1920 ?).

Different era.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[FlyingAl]

On 9/6/2022 at 10:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Nothing there should be offensive to anyone. It's history. 

While it is indeed history, it doesn't make the actions committed any less wrong. History is there so that we may perhaps avoid the tragedies that have already occurred, and hopefully learn enough to avoid more. I thought this had to be acknowledged, though I have not doubt you likely knew this. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by FlyingAl

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/7/2022 at 12:33 AM, FlyingAl said:

While it is indeed history, it doesn't make the actions committed any less wrong. History is there so that we may perhaps avoid the tragedies that have already occurred, and hopefully learn enough to avoid more. I thought this had to be acknowledged, though I have not doubt you likely knew this. 

Sure, but just as amputations and leeches were used to treat illness, so did primitive bartering systems and mercantilist societies have inefficient and what we may consider today to be antiquated or offensive policies.  "Monetary policies" back then meant going to war or stealing someone's gold....increasing the money supply....and leading to GDP growth.  Not exactly like today's open market operations involving the Fed ! 

What I mean is, I wouldn't want to be judged by someone 150 years from now.  The Constitution speaks of being judged by one's peers.  To me, that means contemporary standards.  That's what I mean. 

Most people were paid subsistence wages if they weren't subsistence farmers.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/6/2022 at 4:07 PM, RWB said:

 Thus, the ignoble gentleman, took in $303,850 for flesh, and paid out to the same 436 chattel the generous sum of $436.

If he took in that much, then $436 isn't much, I agree.  But if most of that $300,000 went to creditors, for all we know he may have dipped in to his own pocket for the $$$.  Even if he cleared $10,000 -- $436 is a nice chunk.

The number of slaves seems to have dropped over that time (1,000 to 436).  Maybe that was just adults ?  With children and expansion (cotton and other crops), you would think it would go UP over time.  But the guy was a lousy absentee owner so I guess that explains why the plantation and slaves were not run as "efficiently" as others in the South.

I would be interested in knowing about the authors of the articles and the newspapers -- were they pro or anti-abolition, Copperheads, Whig, or GOP.  Not necessarily in this forum, since we're about coins, but it would be interesting to know, especially since the articles were written in 1859 -- right on the cusp of The Civil War. 

Times were VERY different back then -- The New York Times was sympathetic to slavery during it's early existence.  

Edited September 7, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

One more thing.....I'm wondering if the slaves were treated well by this guy Butler, why he didn't free them ?

Also.....if he gave them money...and then they were sold....wouldn't that money revert to the buyer of the slaves ?  I doubt slaves could have money or any property.

The Dred Scott decision had come out 2 years earlier but maybe there was still confusion about what the SCOTUS ruling meant.

[zadok]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:48 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If he took in that much, then $436 isn't much, I agree.  But if most of that $300,000 went to creditors, for all we know he may have dipped in to his own pocket for the $$$.  Even if he cleared $10,000 -- $436 is a nice chunk.

The number of slaves seems to have dropped over that time (1,000 to 436).  Maybe that was just adults ?  With children and expansion (cotton and other crops), you would think it would go UP over time.  But the guy was a lousy absentee owner so I guess that explains why the plantation and slaves were not run as "efficiently" as others in the South.

I would be interested in knowing about the authors of the articles and the newspapers -- were they pro or anti-abolition, Copperheads, Whig, or GOP.  Not necessarily in this forum, since we're about coins, but it would be interesting to know, especially since the articles were written in 1859 -- right on the cusp of The Civil War. 

Times were VERY different back then -- The New York Times was sympathetic to slavery during it's early existence.  

...fyi $1 in 1859 equals $35.70 in 2022 for whatever thats worth...too bad he didnt have a bag of liberty seated dollars or a bag of old US $1 gold pieces laying around...but i guess at least the quarters could be used in parking meters...on to the next archival anecdote....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:50 AM, zadok said:

...fyi $1 in 1859 equals $35.70 in 2022 for whatever thats worth...too bad he didnt have a bag of liberty seated dollars or a bag of old US $1 gold pieces laying around...but i guess at least the quarters could be used in parking meters...on to the next archival anecdote....

I think $1 might even go further in buying food or shelter back then.  Have to check prices for those particular goods/services.

[RWB]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:48 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The number of slaves seems to have dropped over that time (1,000 to 436). 

No. Approx 1,000 was the number inherited by Pierce and his brother. Only Pierce's were sold. Some also remained on the plantation due to infirmity, illness or childbirth. The Butler plantations were, according to his ex-wife, as efficient as others, but Butler spent and borrowed much more than his income.

Most of the auction proceeds paid creditors. Read the source materials for a more comprehensive picture of the 1859 auction and of the rice plantation in 1838.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/7/2022 at 10:42 AM, RWB said:

No. Approx 1,000 was the number inherited by Pierce and his brother. Only Pierce's were sold. Some also remained on the plantation due to infirmity, illness or childbirth. The Butler plantations were, according to his ex-wife, as efficient as others, but Butler spent and borrowed much more than his income.

I didn't know it was possible to blow $700,000 back then -- where could you spend that kind of money back then ?  

On 9/7/2022 at 10:42 AM, RWB said:

Most of the auction proceeds paid creditors. Read the source materials for a more comprehensive picture of the 1859 auction and of the rice plantation in 1838.

Will do, thanks !   Fascinating story....I wonder if any of those slave descendants or the Butlers are around today and aware of this story.

Edited September 7, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

I recall seeing something abut a century ago where some of the descendants were traced...but not certain.

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/7/2022 at 12:33 AM, FlyingAl said:

While it is indeed history, it doesn't make the actions committed any less wrong. History is there so that we may perhaps avoid the tragedies that have already occurred, and hopefully learn enough to avoid more. I thought this had to be acknowledged, though I have not doubt you likely knew this. 

I knew, but the fact of the matter is, one can insist, "Never Again," again and again, and history will continue to repeat itself. I have lived long enough to know the phrase, oft-used, "to make sure "this" never happens again," is wishful thinking.  Not only will things happen again, subject to all the permutations and combinations wrought by time, but they will be much greater, stronger and, as always, "without precedent."

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:21 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

.... Fascinating story....I wonder if any of those slave descendants or the Butlers are around today and aware of this story.

I would not know whether they know or not, but one of the last stories I heard on TV (before I pulled the plug on the cable) was a presentation on the descendants of slaves that had unwittingly bought a house on a plantation that was worked by their ancestors. They even interviewed the descendants of the family who owned the former plantation.  I think it safe to assume the records, possibly moldering somewhere, are there waiting for enquiring minds so disposed, to discover.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 9/9/2022 at 5:24 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I would not know whether they know or not, but one of the last stories I heard on TV (before I pulled the plug on the cable) was a presentation on the descendants of slaves that had unwittingly bought a house on a plantation that was worked by their ancestors. They even interviewed the descendants of the family who owned the former plantation.  I think it safe to assume the records, possibly moldering somewhere, are there waiting for enquiring minds so disposed, to discover.

That was from "60 Minutes" a few months ago.  Available for free on the website.

Edited September 10, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[Conder101]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:55 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Also.....if he gave them money...and then they were sold....wouldn't that money revert to the buyer of the slaves ?  I doubt slaves could have money or any property.

It would depend on the new owner.  Some would have insisted they hand it over, but other. did allow their slaves to keep their money if they earned some.  That is why some slaves were able to buy their own freedom.

 

On 9/7/2022 at 2:55 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm wondering if the slaves were treated well by this guy Butler, why he didn't free them ?

Because they were valuable property.  The Amish treat their horses well, but they don't just free them.  They need them for the work they do.  And in this case Butler needed them to pay off his creditors.

 

On 9/7/2022 at 2:55 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The Dred Scott decision had come out 2 years earlier but maybe there was still confusion about what the SCOTUS ruling meant.

Dred Scott decision would not have had any bearing in this situation.  These were slaves in a slave state that had probably never been in a free state.  Dredd Scott basically said that a slave that lived in a free state did not automatically become a free person, that negros were not and could never be citizens of the US, and the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

 

On 9/7/2022 at 8:50 AM, zadok said:

but i guess at least the quarters could be used in parking meters

Parking meters?  In 1859?  You're about 75 years early.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Conder101

[RWB]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:06 AM, Conder101 said:

It would depend on the new owner.  Some would have insisted they hand it over, but other. did allow their slaves to keep their money if they earned some.  That is why some slaves were able to buy their own freedom.

Those who decide to read the source documents will find that in the late 1830s several of Butler's plantation slaves earned outside money by using their trade skills. If you read the lengthy account of the building the the City of Washington from 1791-1800 you will also find examples of slaves doing extra work for pay or fees and keeping the money. Throughout the south, most never had much opportunity to earn money due to the isolation of plantations.

[zadok]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:06 AM, Conder101 said:

It would depend on the new owner.  Some would have insisted they hand it over, but other. did allow their slaves to keep their money if they earned some.  That is why some slaves were able to buy their own freedom.

 

Because they were valuable property.  The Amish treat their horses well, but they don't just free them.  They need them for the work they do.  And in this case Butler needed them to pay off his creditors.

 

Dred Scott decision would not have had any bearing in this situation.  These were slaves in a slave state that had probably never been in a free state.  Dredd Scott basically said that a slave that lived in a free state did not automatically become a free person, that negros were not and could never be citizens of the US, and the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

 

Parking meters?  In 1859?  You're about 75 years early.

...just trying to stay one step ahead...lead n not follow....

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

....What I mean is, I wouldn't want to be judged by someone 150 years from now....

Fortunately, for me, I wouldn't be judged any harsher than I am now.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:06 AM, Conder101 said:

....Parking meters?  In 1859?  You're about 75 years early....

Sixty-two to be exact... (why do I feel this is a shot across my bow for suggesting my wife would feed my gold roosters into the slots of laundry and dryer machines upon my expiration.)  

[Conder101]

Would they fit?

Reading the Slave Narratives  turns up several references by former slaves mentioning earning small sums of money or receiving money and being allowed to keep it.

For those that don't know one of the projects in 1937 in Roosevelt's make work WPA was to locate as many living former slaves as they could find and interview them about their life as slaves.  These were typed up and grouped by state where the former slave now lived.  Some of them are true narratives that even reproduce the actual "dialect" of the former slave while others are obviously the interviewer paraphrasing the subject.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Conder101

[Henri Charriere]

I know discussion of this Topic is expressly forbidden by Law, and worse, punishment by those who hold the Guidelines sacrosanct by drawing-and-quartering at the very least and permanent exile at worst, but I feel the concept of recording oral histories to be exceedingly important.  One wants to hear the story told, not second- or third-hand, but by the people who who were there who experienced it first-hand.. I would have liked to have heard the story of what drove Henry "Box" Brown to secrete himself in a crate and "mail" himself 350 miles,  a 27-hr. journey to Philadelphia, in a free state, from Baltimore, MD., which wasn't, in 1849. [He was 6' tall and weighed 200 lbs; the "box" was 3'-1" L x 2'-6" D and only 2' wide.]

Some of the more interesting first-person accounts have come from people's with strong oral traditions. The indigenous indigent native Americans, the descendants of slaves, actual German Nazis, the North Vietnamese who excavated a maze of tunnels, the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor (as reconstructed from letters of soldiers sent to home and official dispatches, and liberated concentration camp survivors.

The account provided here by member RWB, as close to an eyewitness account that could be given, is valuable in that it provides not only a detailed recitation of events, but does so using the vernacular of the times giving it authentic period flavor.  The silver coins are indispensable to the story.  

[RWB]

On 9/28/2022 at 6:45 AM, Conder101 said:

Some of them are true narratives that even reproduce the actual "dialect" of the former slave

There are a few wire recordings, also, and some sound film.

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/28/2022 at 10:52 AM, RWB said:

There are a few wire recordings, also, and some sound film.

I had to go fact-check this, but one parallel I can think of--and I am by no means a folk music fanatic--is Alan Lomax, affiliated with the Library of Congress, who literally walked around and recorded the music of such greats as McKinley Morganfield of Stovall, MS., better known as "Muddy Waters," in their natural habitat at the turn of the last century. 

The original account you've presented here captures the flavor and true essence of the times.

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/28/2022 at 6:45 AM, Conder101 said:

Would they fit?

[I am ashamed to say I checked, and they do.  They are obviously smaller in diameter but are readily accepted as per width.]