Read this article
- Access statistics
- 6,075 article downloads
- 12,036 complete issue downloads
- Total: 18,111
Grubb’s recent papers (2003, 2004, 2006b) are aimed at nothing less than rewriting important chapters of early American history. Our goal in both our AER and EJW comments was a negative one, to dissuade readers from accepting Grubb’s views and data. We are humbled by the complexity of the early American monetary system and the meagerness of the available evidence. We nowhere make the blanket claims that Grubb attributes to us, namely, that specie was plentiful, that exchange rates were immutable, or that cross-colony circulation of bills of credit was ubiquitous. Instead, we offer evidence that at some times and places specie was more abundant than Grubb claims, that most colonial exchange rates oscillated within broad specie points, and that bills of credit often circulated in adjacent colonies. And again, we make such claims with one point only in mind, to alert scholars that Grubb’s interpretation is highly suspect.
This article is a response to Theory, Evidence, and Belief—The Colonial Money Puzzle Revisited: Reply to Michener and Wright by Farley Grubb (EJW, January 2006).
Response to this article by Farley Grubb: Benjamin Franklin and Colonial Money: A Reply to Michener and Wright—Yet Again (EJW, September 2006).
EJW News item related to this article: EJW apology to Professor Farley Grubb (April 26, 2018).