Read this article
- Access statistics
- 837 article downloads
- 3,717 complete issue downloads
- Total: 4,554
In a previous comment regarding Farley Grubb’s 2016 Journal of Economic History article on the monetary history of colonial New Jersey, I outline many fatal flaws in his empirical analysis. In his rejoinder, Grubb (2020) suggests that his article’s central contribution lies elsewhere, and hence is untouched by my critique. I turn, therefore, to a discussion of the many flaws in the theoretical analysis and historical evidence used in that article. I conclude by showing how Grubb (2020) manipulated quotations, using omissions, ellipses, and his own fanciful bracketed insertions to justify his alterations to the authoritative data of John McCusker, a central issue in my original comment.
This article is a response to Colonial New Jersey’s Paper Money, 1709–1775: Why Ronald Michener Insists on Using Uncorrected Data—A Reply by Farley Grubb (EJW, March 2020).
Response to this article by Farley Grubb: Colonial New Jersey’s Paper Money: A Reply to Michener Again, and Again, and Again (EJW, March 2021).