David Ginsburg

Before I began researching the amount of gold coinage produced by the members of the Bechtler family in North Carolina in the mid-19th century, I consulted my copy of Private Gold Coins and Patterns of the United States by Donald Kagin. The book includes a table that is probably familiar to anyone acquainted with the Bechtler family’s activities:

Coined	Amount	Fluxed (dwts)
Jan 1831-Dec 1834	$109,732.50	395,804
Dec 1834-Dec 1835	$695,896.00	711,583
Dec 1835-Aug 1836	$471,322.50	397,410
Aug 1836-May 1838	$770,329.50	201,141
May 1838-Feb 1840	$194,560.00	24,060

The table shows coinage from January 1831 to February 1840 and the weights of gold “fluxed” during that period. This presents two obvious questions: 1) why does it only cover from January 1831 to February 1840, when the Bechtlers’ mint may have operated until 1850, and, 2) what does “fluxed” mean?

An Internet search led me to Thomas Featherstonhaugh’s 1906 article, “A Private Mint in North Carolina.” Mr. Featherstonhaugh began his article by quoting his grandfather’s 1847 description of a visit to Rutherfordton and the Bechtler mint. His curiosity evidently piqued, the younger Mr. Featherstonhaugh visited the town himself in January 1906.

In the article, Mr. Featherstonhaugh summarized Christopher Bechtler’s arrival in the United States and his early activities. He also quoted the August 1831 advertisement from the North Carolina Spectator that announced the availability of Mr. Bechtler’s services to the local gold miners.

Regarding the Bechtler coinage, he quoted from A Description of Ancient and Modern Coins in the Cabinet Collection of the Mint of the United States, the Report of the Director of the Mint for 1840 and a very informative Senate Report 290, which is from early 1840 and deals primarily with the export and import of specie in 1839.

Mr. Featherstonhaugh next gave his opinion of some Bechtler coins (he was fortunate to see “coins of each denomination which are kept as curios by the people of Rutherfordton”) and described the rollers the Bechtlers used to roll bullion into coin strip. Mr. Featherstonhaugh reported that he “…made every effort to find a Bechtler rifle…”, but he “…was, however, unable to even see one, though they are well remembered by the older citizens and had a great reputation in their day.” Mr. Featherstonhaugh seemed not to be aware that his grandfather, according to his reminiscences, purchased a rifle, which he directed Christopher Bechtler to inlay his name on the barrel “…with the gold found on his own farm….”

Mr. Featherstonhaugh concluded his article by describing his visit to the former Bechtler property. He reported that while the house had burned down, he “…saw on every hand signs of the past activities of this industrious and enthusiastic German.” He visited the former graves of Christopher, August and Charles Bechtler, as the “…remains of all three were exhumed and taken away for reburial by a relative several years ago and there is no one of the Bechtler blood left in the town.”

As I alluded, Senate Report 290 contains many valuable nuggets for the numismatic historian. The bulk of the report is taken up by detailed tables listing exports and imports of specie for 1839, broken down by reporting custom house. Some of the tables (New York’s, for example) are sufficiently detailed to list not only the carrying ship and its origin or destination, but also the specifics of its specie cargo: e.g., Patriot Doubloons (from the newly independent Latin American countries), Mexican Dollars, US half dollars, etc.

The Report includes a March 12, 1840 letter from Mint Director Robert M. Patterson to Secretary of the Treasury Levi Woodbury, replying to a request for a table of the annual product of the gold mines of the United States. Director Patterson stated that having received contradictory answers to earlier questions, this time he referred to the superintendents of the Charlotte and Dahlonega mints. While the superintendent of the Dahlonega mint provided only a vague reply, John Wheeler, the superintendent of the Charlotte mint, provided a much more substantive response.

Mr. Wheeler began by commenting that some $2.9 million in gold from American mines was coined at Philadelphia and Charlotte up to 1839, but that the “…American Almanac for 1832…states that ‘the weekly product of the mines was $100,000, or $5,000,000 annually; and that by far the larger portion of the bullion went to Europe, particularly to Paris, and that but a small portion was coined at the United States mint, Philadelphia’ ”.

Mr. Wheeler pointed out that many of the North Carolina gold mines were owned or leased by foreigners and that the capital to exploit the mines came from abroad, as well. As a result, the owners’ agents “…made prompt returns by remitting the bullion direct to Europe.” He also reported that the local merchants and bullion purchasers took their gold to New York because the assayers there paid more than the mint.

As further evidence that only a minority of the North Carolina gold production was coined at the Philadelphia and Charlotte mints, Mr. Wheeler pointed to the Bechtler mint. Referring to its output, he stated “…much of it is carried by travelers, emigrants, traders, and others, into Kentucky, Tennessee, and elsewhere…. From our experience, but little has been [re]coined; at least we have not
received $500 of it here.” Mr. Wheeler also commented that much of the bullion produced in North Carolina was “…sold to manufacturers in bars or grains, which of course never reaches the mint.” He concluded his letter by estimating that the North Carolina mines had yielded $10 million in gold since their discovery and were currently producing $400,000 in gold annually.

In support of his conclusion, Mr. Wheeler attached three appendices to his letter, the first of which is the table at the beginning of this article, which was from a letter from Christopher Bechtler dated February 20, 1840. Eureka! I have now determined why the table only extends to February 1840. Mr. Wheeler also explained that fluxed (in this context) refers to gold processed into bullion rather than coins.

At 80 cents per pennyweight (which Mr. Wheeler reported was the average assay in North Carolina at the time), this would indicate that Mr. Bechtler had turned about $1.4 million of bullion into bars, which led Mr. Wheeler to his second appendix: that $3 million of North Carolina gold had been coined at the United States mints up to the end of 1839, that $3.6 million had passed through Mr. Bechtler’s hands and that $3.4 million had been sold to manufacturers or sent to Europe. Total production of the North Carolina mines up to 1839 came to $10 million.

As was typical of the time, government reports were often reprinted by commercial periodicals. Mr. Wheeler’s comments were deemed sufficiently interesting that they were reprinted no less than three times.

Mr. Wheeler’s letter was reprinted in 1) Hazard’s United States Commercial and Statistical Register for July 1, 1840, which reprinted the letter in its entirely; 2) The American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge for the year 1841, which reprinted most of the letter (even retaining the quotation from the 1832 edition of The American Almanac!); and, finally,
some four years later, in 3) Hunt’s The Merchants’ Magazine for July 1844, which also reprinted most of the letter (and even added “It is not generally known, we believe, in the eastern states, that there is a private manufactory of coin in North Carolina.”).

Now, as a result of a few short Internet searches, I have answered my questions about the Bechtler mint, gained a better picture of the North Carolina gold mines of the time and, obtained a copy of Senate Report 290, which may help me create a more detailed view of US specie exports and imports of the time.

The Annual Report of the Director of the Mint normally included details that year’s coin production. However, the 1887 Annual Report included, for the first time, a table showing the mintage by denomination and mint, for each year from 1792.

The Report stated that “[t]his valuable table, which has been compiled with no little care and research, from original sources of information, such as the work-books and delivery books of the coinage mints…” The Report also commented about the state of the records from the southern mints:

The local records of the mint at Dahlonega have not survived the disorganization of that institution in 1861. Monthly and annual reports made by the superintendent to the Director of the Mint have been found at Philadelphia, and the original account of bullion and coin remain on file in the Treasury Department.

The records of the mint at Charlotte are not in as perfect order as could be wished.

The work-books of the mint at New Orleans show that a coinage was executed at that institution in 1861, between January 26 and May 31, by the State of Louisiana, after the mint was closed against the United States, amounting to $195,000 in double eagles; and a coinage by the Confederate States of $59,820 in double eagles—a total gold coinage during the sequestration of the mint of $254,820.

In the second and third months of the same year there was also executed by the State of Louisiana at the United States mint in the city of New Orleans a silver coinage of $620,000 in half dollars; and by the Confederate States in the following months of April and May, $481,316.50—a total silver coinage of half-dollars by the State of Louisiana and the Confederate States of $1,101,316.50, from regular dies of the United States supplied late in 1860 for the following year. For obvious reasons, neither of the coinages executed at the United States mint at New Orleans, while out of the control of the Government, has ever been take up in statements of the coinage of the United States.

Thirty-two pairs of dies of the date of 1861, more or less complete, and of all denominations of United States coins, were found at the mint by the agent of this Bureau in January, 1885, and by him destroyed on the 15th of that month.

It is presumed that the larger part, if not the whole, of the gold coin struck, as above described, from United States coinage dies under other than legal auspices, was applied to purchases abroad, and that accordingly it has long since been melted down without ever having appeared in any form in domestic circulation.

The following very interesting statement of the above incidents in the history of the coinage from dies of 1861 is from the pen of Dr. M.F. Bonzano, melter and refiner of the mint at New Orleans during the period in question:

NEW ORLEANS, November 4, 1887

SIR: In compliance with the request contained in your letter of the 27th ultimo, to furnish such information as I might have in regard to the coinage at the United States branch mint at New Orleans during its occupation by the State of Louisiana and the Confederate States in the early part of 1861, I beg leave to make the following statement:

The officers of the United States branch mint at the time of the secession of the State of Louisiana from the Union were: William A. Elmore, superintendent; A.J. Guirot, treasurer and ex-officio assistant treasurer United States; Howard Millspaugh, assayer; B.F. Taylor, coiner; M.F Bonzano, melter and refiner.

The branch mint and its contents and all other property of the United States were “taken in trust” by the secession convention in December, 1860, through a committee of the convention, at the head of which was the president of the convention, Ex-Gov. A. Mouton. The committee called at the mint, ascertained the amount of bullion in the hands of the treasurer, melter and refiner, and coiner, and required a special bond for the same from each of these officers. A rough settlement was made and all dies of 1860 defaced in the presence of all the officers (except Mr. Guirot). By order of the superintendent coinage was immediately resumed with the new dies of 1861, and continued until the 31st of May, 1861, when a final settlement was made and all bullion transferred to Mr. A.J. Guirot, who had in the mean time been appointed assistant treasurer of the Confederate States. At the same time all the United States dies, of every description—after careful examination and recognized agreement with the coiner’s die account—were, with the consent of the coiner, and in my presence, defaced by the late Mr. John F. Brown, the foreman of the department, with the assistance of a workman, the late Mr. Richard Stevenson.

Under the auspices of the superintendent, treasurer, and coiner, who probably believed in the possibility of a peaceful secession, designs for a Confederate coin were made, and that of a half dollar by the coiner, accepted and executed by an engraver of this city, who produced a half-dollar die of such high relief as rendered it impracticable for me in a coining press. From this die four pieces were struck, by successive blows of a screw-press. These four pieces differed from the United States standard only in the legend. I never saw any of these pieces, nor the die, and only the preliminary sketch of it. My information was derived from Mr. John F. Brown, at the time. With the exception of these four pieces no coins of any kind, differing from the United States standard, were ever made
at the New Orleans branch mint during the interval from May 31, 1861, to the early part of 1879.

On my return to this city, June 7, 1862, after an absence, at the North, of eleven months, I took charge of the mint as special agent of the Treasury Department; found the canceled or defaced dies undisturbed and intact in the coiner’s vault and retained them in my custody until the latter part of December, 1878, when I delivered them, as coiner, to my successor, Mr. M.V. Davis, in the same packages as they were on the 31st of May, 1861. Thenceforth my connection with, and knowledge of, these canceled dies ceased.

I have the honor to be, yours, very respectfully,

M.F. Bonzano.

Hon. JAS. P. Kimball, Director of the Mint, Washington, D.C.

Notes:

1.

The Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1887. See page 7 for the extracted text.

2.

The Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the State of Louisiana contains an inventory of the property of the New Orleans Mint as of the beginning of 1861. See page 65 for the inventory.

The operations of the New Orleans Mint, unlike the other US Mints, clearly fall into two periods: the Antebellum Period (from 1838 to early 1861), when the New Orleans Mint operated in a thriving city that exported the products of the Mississippi River valley and, the Post-Civil War Period (from 1878 to 1909), when New Orleans was reduced to being a commercial backwater and the Mint was primarily devoted to churning out tens of millions of unwanted Morgan silver dollars.

It’s easy to see the difference between the two periods: in the 24-year Antebellum Period, the New Orleans Mint produced $31.1 million of silver coins and $40.4 million of gold coins, whereas in the 31-year Post-War period, the New Orleans Mint produced $219.4 million of silver coins and only $8.5 million of gold coins.

In reviewing the Mint Annual Reports from 1876 to 1910, it’s clear that the New Orleans Mint was much busier in the Post-War Period than it was in the Antebellum Period. In a typical antebellum year, the New Orleans Mint produced 4.1 million coins, with a peak production of 10.3 million coins across nine denominations in 1854. In contrast, in a typical post-War year, the New Orleans Mint produced 8.7 million coins, with a peak production of 21.7 million coins of five denominations in 1901.

What’s very interesting is that the New Orleans Mint met most of this increased demand with the same four coin presses it used during the Antebellum Period! (Which is, of course, a topic for another article?)

Before I begin a review of the New Orleans Mint’s Post-War operations, however, I’d like to highlight three rather curious incidents:

Poor Quality Assays in 1882
From the 1883 Mint Annual Report:

The committee on assaying [which met during February 1883,] reported that the “results are all within the limits of tolerance as required by law, with the exception of one sample coin from the delivery at the New Orleans Mint January 14, 1882, the fineness of which is 898.93, being seven one-hundredths of one-thousandth below the legal limit.”

The fact that one of the gold coins reserved at the mint at New Orleans was deficient in fineness was certified to by the commission and reported to the President.

The Superintendent of the mint at Philadelphia, Mr. A. Loudon Snowden, was instructed to proceed to New Orleans to ascertain the cause of the defective coinage. From the facts disclosed by his report and the records it was deemed advisable that a change should be made in the office of assayer, and Dr. Jos. Albrecht [who had been Assayer since 1878] was superseded by Dr. B.F. Taylor, who had been coiner of the mint prior to the late war. He was commissioned June 27 [1883], and entered upon his duties after the close of the annual settlement [on June 30, 1883].

The assay coins from the mint at New Orleans represented a gold coinage of only $108,200…

It had been previously ascertained by the monthly tests at this Bureau that the gold coin of one delivery at the New Orleans mint was deficient in fineness and the Superintendent was instructed to withhold from circulation all the coin in his custody that had been made from the defective melt of ingots, for the purpose of recoinage.

The melter and refiner, Dr. M.F. Bonzano, was superseded by the assistant assayer, Mr. F.F. Claussen, who was commissioned June 27 [1883].

According to the Mint Annual Report, of the 10,820 eagles that were the only gold coins minted in New Orleans in 1882, 7,320 were minted between January and June and 3,500 were minted between July and December. The Assay Commission report shows deliveries (and the number of assay coins reserved from those deliveries) on January 14 (two coins), March 20 (two coins), June 1 (two coins) and 14 (three coins) and November 22 (four coins). The Mint’s practice (as required by the Coinage Act of 1873) was to send for assay one coin per thousand (or portion thereof) gold coins minted.

Also, although the Report didn’t indicate any connection, it’s interesting that Dr. Bonzano, the melter and refiner, left at the same time Dr. Albrecht was replaced.

Theft by the Cashier in 1893
From the 1893 Mint Annual Report:

The annual settlement of the mint at New Orleans, June 30, 1893, was superintended by Mr. H. Clay Stier, of the office of the First Auditor, and Mr. Leonard Magruder, of New Orleans, who witnessed and took account of the bullion and coin delivered by the melter and refiner, and coiner to the superintendent in settlement of their accounts, after which they weighed the bullion and counted the coin and other moneys with which the superintendent was charged, and for which he is responsible.

In counting the currency (Treasury notes) in the cashier’s vault a deficiency of $25,000 was found, which the cashier claimed were destroyed by a fire that occurred in his vault between the closing of the same Saturday afternoon, June 24, and the opening thereof on Monday morning, June 26, 1893.

On June 26, 1893, the superintendent of the mint advised this Bureau by telegraph of the fire, and requested that some competent person who was accustomed to the handling of charred money be sent from the Department to count the money charred by the fire in the cashier’s vault. Through the courtesy of the Treasurer of the United States, Mrs. L.E. Rosenberg, of the redemption division, was sent to New Orleans, who, after much patient labor, found among the charred paper $1,182 in currency which had not been destroyed beyond identification, leaving a deficiency of $23,818 to be accounted for. The circumstances of the fire were such as to lead to the belief that it was not accidental, but of incendiary origin, for the purpose of concealing a shortage in the cashier’s accounts, he being the only person having access to the vault. Taking this view of the case, a thorough investigation as to the origin of the fire was made by Mr. A.R. Barrett, of the secret service. The evidence collected by him was deemed sufficient to justify the arrest of the cashier, who was taken before the United States commissioner, and gave bail for his future appearance.

From the 1894 Mint Annual Report:

The former cashier of the mint at New Orleans, who was arrested for the embezzlement of $25,000 in June, 1893, was tried before the United States court at New Orleans in December last, and was acquitted of the charge.

Suit has been instituted against the former superintendent, Dr. Andrew W. Smyth, and is now pending for the recovery of the amount.

The position of Cashier was created as a result of the Coinage Act of 1873, which directed that “the offices of the treasurer of the mints in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and New Orleans shall be vacated,” and “[t]he duties of the treasurers shall devolve as herein provided upon the superintendents, and said treasurers shall act only as assistant treasurers of the United States…” Essentially, the position of Treasurer of the Mint was demoted from a Presidential appointment to a subordinate of the Superintendent. The Act also required the officers of the mints to post a bond of between $10,000 and $50,000 for the faithful and diligent performance of their duties, which explains why the Government instituted a suit against Dr. Smyth.

While the theft may have played a role in why Dr. Smyth became a “former superintendent,” it wouldn’t explain why the Assayer, Melter & Refiner and Coiner were also replaced at the same time. A more likely explanation is that President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, who took office for his second term on March 4, 1893, also took the opportunity to replace the officers of the New Orleans Mint who had served under his predecessor, President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican.

Poor Quality Gold Bars in 1893
From the 1894 Mint Annual Report:

In September, 1893, two half eagles were received from the New Orleans mint which showed on assay that cuttings from the same piece varied in fineness from .899 to .900,3. This being entirely unusual in the assay of standard gold, five additional pieces from the same delivery were asked for and furnished by the superintendent at New Orleans.

A large number of assays was made from these pieces, with the same strange results, fully confirming the accuracy of the previous work. A mass melt was made of the residue of these coins, and after a thorough mixing an ingot was obtained of uniform fineness showing only .899,5.

The issue of these coins was stopped, and Mr. Cabell Whitehead, the assayer to the Mint Bureau, was instructed to proceed to New Orleans and ascertain, if possible, the cause of this apparent “segregation” in gold bullion. One lot of $125,000 in half eagles was melted into ingots. A remelting was found necessary before a uniform assay could be obtained, and this showed a fineness of only .899,5, although the ingots from which the coins were originally made were passed at .900.

The mint at Philadelphia, working on bullion of the same description, suffered from an unusual number of melts condemned as “not mixed.” Attention was naturally attracted to the history of the bullion which caused the trouble, and it was found that the bars sent to New Orleans and the Philadelphia mint were made several years ago at the New York assay office from foreign coin – chiefly Spanish. It was not refined, the natural supposition being that it was suitable for coinage, although it is now recalled that some difficulty was experience in getting uniform assays.

The facts seemed to indicate the presence of some unusual element in this bullion, which only a complete analysis would reveal. The following table shows two such analyses made by the assayer of the Bureau. One is from a sample of the bullion sent to New Orleans, and the other is of coin made at the Philadelphia mint from bullion of the same character:

Metals	New Orleans coin made (from Spanish coins)	Philadelphia coin made (from Spanish coins)
Gold	896.3000	900.2000
Silver	9.9650	7.1000
Copper (by dif)	93.6087	92.5654
Iron	0.0620	0.0300
Platinum	0.0470	0.0470
Lead	Trace	Trace
Bismuth	Trace	Trace
Arsenic	Trace	0.0002
Antimony	0.0013	0.0014
Tin		Trace
Zinc	0.0150	0.0500
Nickel and cobalt	0.0010	0.0060
Total	1000.0000	1000.0000

The presence of zinc, nickel, and cobalt is unusual in gold bullion. The percentage of iron shown by the assays is a little higher than usual, but the presence of even larger quantities of this metal has not been found to cause segregation in gold ingots. We have not the same assurance as to the effect of zinc even in small quantities, and it is believed that the troublesome and anomalous results above mentioned may be fairly attributed to the presence of zinc in the bullion.

According to the Mint Annual Report, of the 110,000 half eagles that were minted in New Orleans in 1893, 47,000 were minted between January and June and 63,000 were minted between July and December. Furthermore, the Mint’s Production Journal shows that 30,000 half eagles were produced in February, 17,000 in March, 8,000 in August, 25,000 in September, 4,000 in October, 44,000 in November and 7,000 in December, for a total of 135,000 coins. The 25,000 minted in September were melted, resulting in a total mintage of 110,000.¹

The New Orleans Mint received deposits of $1.8 million of gold in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1894, of which $1.5 million was a redeposit of the troublesome unparted gold bars. (The Philadelphia Mint recorded redeposits of $6.1 million in unparted bars in the same period.) Most of this gold was most likely used to mint the $1.6 million of gold coins that were minted between July 1893 and June 1894: 122,000 eagles (consisting of 17,000 1893-dated coins and 105,000 1894-dated coins) and 79,600 half eagles (consisting of 63,000 1893-dated and 16,600 1894-dated coins).

Interestingly, the Mint Report doesn’t indicate any trouble with the eagles minted in either 1893 or 1894, or the half eagles minted in the first half of 1893 or in 1894.

This is the first in a series of articles on the New Orleans Mint’s Post-Civil War operations. In subsequent articles, I’ll examine the gold deposits during the period, the New Orleans mint’s operating constraints (that led to the intermittent mintages of eagles and the absence of most other gold denominations), the relationship between the Panic of 1893 and the eagles and half eagles of 1892-1894 and the Mint’s officers, at least one of whom led a very colorful life.

1. Information from the Mint’s Production Journal (NARA College Park, MD. RG104, entry 171, vol. 4 of 5) is provided courtesy of Roger W. Burdette.

Gold was first discovered in North Carolina in 1799, but it was five years before anyone made the arduous journey to deposit some at the Philadelphia Mint so that it could be turned into coins.

A total of about $11,000 was deposited in 1804, but thereafter, deposits averaged only $2,500 annually until 1824, which marked the real beginning of America’s first gold rush. From about $5,000 that year, deposits increased rapidly to $128, 000 in 1829 and peaked at $475, 000 in 1833, as the southern gold rush widened from North Carolina to include Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama. Between 1824 and 1837, $5.1 million of southern gold was deposited at the Philadelphia Mint.

However, not all of the southern gold was taken to the Philadelphia Mint. While Templeton Reid only briefly operated a private mint in North Carolina in 1830, the Bechtler family ran its mint very successfully from 1831 until about 1850, minting about $2.2 million of gold coins between 1831 and 1840.¹

With more than a half million dollars of gold being transported to Philadelphia annually, the region was ripe for its own official mints. Authorized in 1835, the branch mints at Charlotte and Dahlonega were established to coin gold, while the New Orleans Mint was established to coin both silver and gold.

The New Orleans Mint commenced operations in March 1838, and in that year it received bullion deposits of $277,600, of which $237,000 was silver and $40,600 was gold.

Interestingly, the New Orleans Mint received far more silver than gold in the antebellum period. Total silver deposits from 1838 to 1861 were $34.6 million, which means that the New Orleans Mint received some 13 times to14 times as much silver as gold during the period. “Mexican dollars constitute[d] the greatest bulk of the material for silver coinage” in the mid-1840’s, reported John L. Riddell, who served as Melter and Refiner at the New Orleans Mint from 1839 to 1848.²

Total deposits of gold from the New Orleans Mint’s opening until it ceased reporting to the US government in January 1861 were $40.4 million, of which about $40,000 consisted of pre-1834 US gold coins, about $432,000 consisted of foreign bullion, $17.5 million consisted of foreign coins and $22.4 million consisted of domestic bullion.

After the Act of June 28, 1834 reduced the size of US gold coins, the coins minted under the “old standard” could be deposited at the Mints and recoined.³ While most of these coins apparently had been exported and melted shortly after they were minted, $37,767 worth were deposited at the New Orleans Mint for recoinage between 1840 and 1851 and a further $1,822 was deposited between July 1857 and June 1858.

Foreign bullion was deposited at the New Orleans Mint throughout the antebellum period. Unfortunately, the Mint Annual Reports only occasionally mention its origins.

Foreign coins were a significant source of deposits at the New Orleans Mint, especially prior to 1848. Deposits peaked at $6.2 million in 1847, due to transfers from the New Orleans Custom House as a result of the Independent Treasury Act.⁴As Mr. Riddell reported, in the mid-1840’s, “…the most abundant foreign gold coins being English sovereigns, French Napoleons [20-Franc pieces], patriot doubloons [presumably from the former Spanish colonies in South America], and the coinage of different German States…”⁵ Deposits of foreign gold coins declined considerably after 1847; most subsequent annual deposits were less than $150,000 while the peak annual deposit between 1848 and January 1861was $679,772, in the fiscal year ending June 1858.

Prior to the arrival of the great flood of California gold, domestic bullion was a relatively modest source of deposits. From 1838 to 1847, just under $120,000 of domestic gold was deposited at the New Orleans Mint. While the Mint Annual Reports don’t provide annual details of the sources of domestic bullion prior to 1848, they do show that, for the overall period, 52% of the domestic gold was from Alabama, 31% was from Georgia, 12% was from South Carolina, almost 2% was from Tennessee, just over one-half of one percent was from North Carolina and 3% was from “other sources”.

After 1847, the modest stream of gold from states other than California diminished to a mere trickle, totaling $30,054 from 1848 through January 1861. Of this amount, 53% was from Alabama, 13% was from Georgia, 11% was from Pike’s Peak, Colorado, 6% was from South Carolina, 4% was from Tennessee and 12% was from “other sources”. Interestingly, no non-California domestic bullion was deposited at the New Orleans Mint from 1852 through June 1857.

For the antebellum period, 99.3% of the New Orleans Mint’s total domestic gold deposits was from California. This gold began arriving at the New Orleans Mint in 1848, when a total of $1,124 was deposited. The largest amount of California gold was received in 1851, when $8.8 million was deposited. While deposits continued to arrive throughout the period, the San Francisco Mint and New York Assay Office began taking the lion’s share of California gold deposits after they opened in April and October, respectively, of 1854.⁶ Deposits at the New Orleans Mint dropped to just under $1 million in 1854, just over $400, 000 in 1855 and generally declined thereafter.

The tables below show the total amount of gold and the amount of domestic bullion (by state of origin) that was deposited at the New Orleans Mint from 1838 to 1861.

Gold Deposited at the New Orleans Mint: 1838-1861

	US Coins (Old Standard)	% of Total Deposits	Foreign Coins	% of Total Deposits	Foreign Bullion	% of Total Deposits	Domestic Bullion	% of Total Deposits	Total Deposits
1838	$0		$39,900	98.3	$0		$700	1.7	$40,600
1839*	0		20,132	22.6	61,906	69.6%	6,869	7.7	88,907
1840	348	0.2	143,297	86.9	18,449	11.2	2,835	1.7	164,929
1841	716	1.2	55,740	94.8	493	0.8	1,818	3.1	58,767
1842	2,246	0.4	572,811	97.0	9,833	1.7	5,630	1.0	590,520
1843	1,257	0.0	3,081,962	98.2	33,198	1.1	22,573	0.7	3,138,990
1844	7,042	0.2	2,956,874	98.5	14,224	0.5	25,036	0.8	3,003,176
1845	1,980	0.3	618,315	95.6	6,372	1.0	20,313	3.1	646,980
1846	7,735	0.6	1,165,033	96.5	13,012	1.1	21,758	1.8	1,207,538
1847	9,901	0.2	6,220,700	99.5	12,371	0.2	9,256	0.1	6,252,228
1838 – 1847**	31,225	0.2	14,874,764	97.9	169,858	1.1	119,699	0.8	15,195,546
1848	1,843	1.0	151,444	82.6	17,484	9.5	12,593	6.9	183,364
1849	3,902	0.3	437,130	38.9	6,728	0.6	677,189	60.2	1,124,949
1850	622	0.0	62,010	1.3	4,653	0.1	4,580,030	98.6	4,647,315
1851	175	0.0	148,526	1.7	8,638	0.1	8,770,722	98.2	8,928,061
1852	0		136,211	3.5	21,673	0.6	3,777,784	96.0	3,935,668
1853	0		121,894	5.7	23,687	1.1	2,006,673	93.2	2,152,254
1854	0		114,137	10.0	43,487	3.8	981,511	86.2	1,139,135
1855	0		9,672	2.2	9,968	2.3	411,517	95.4	431,157
1856	0		15,946	5.1	11,635	3.7	283,345	91.1	310,926
1/57-6/57	0		15,062	10.0	6,787	4.5	129,328	85.5	151,177
7/57-6/58	1,822	0.2	679,772	59.2	17,035	1.5	450,164	39.2	1,148,793
7/58-6/59	0		394,928	76.3	29,622	5.7	93,272	18.0	517,822
7/59-6/60	0		24,856	16.2	39,309	25.6	89,567	58.3	153,732
7/60-3/61	0		291,011	87.0	21,801	6.5	21,599	6.5	334,411
Total	$39,589	0.1	$17,477,363	43.3%	$432,365	1.1	$22,404,993	55.5	$40,354,310

Note: The Annual Mint Reports occasionally contain small discrepancies in deposit amounts. These discrepancies are usually corrected in subsequent Annual Reports, but are never explained. I have reconciled these discrepancies to the best of my ability and noted some of the more significant ones below.

*Includes $3,748 in deposits not categorized by the Mint, which I’ve added to Foreign Bullion

**The individual amounts for Domestic Bullion deposits for 1838-1847 are shown in every report from 1838 to 1849 and add up to $116,788. The summary amount of $119,699 is shown in each of the reports from 1850 to 1861; the difference is $2,911. I have used the larger number in my calculations.

Domestic Bullion Deposited at the New Orleans Mint: 1838-1861

	California	% of Domestic Bullion	Other States	% of Domestic Bullion	Total Domestic Bullion
1838	—		$700	100.0	$700
1839	—		6,869	100.0	6,869
1840	—		2,835	100.0	2,835
1841	—		1,818	100.0	1,818
1842	—		5,630	100.0	5,630
1843	—		22,573	100.0	22,573
1844	—		25,036	100.0	25,036
1845	—		20,313	100.0	20,313
1846	—		21,758	100.0	21,758
1847	—		9,256	100.0	9,256
1838 – 1847*			119,699		119,699
1848	$1,124	8.9	11,469	91.1	12,593
1849	669,921	98.9	7,268	1.1	677,189
1850	4,575,576	99.9	4,454	0.1	4,580,030
1851	8,769,682	100.0	1,040		8,770,722
1852	3,777,784	100.0	0		3,777,784
1853	2,006,673	100.0	0		2,006,673
1854	981,511	100.0	0		981,511
1855	411,517	100.0	0		411,517
1856	283,345	100.0	0		283,345
1/57-6/57	129,328	100.0	0		129,328
7/57-6/58	448,440	99.6	1,724	0.4	450,164
7/58-6/59	93,272	100.0	0		93,272
7/59-6/60	87,135	97.3	2,432	2.7	89,567
7/60-3/61	19,932	92.3	1,667	7.7	21,599
Total	$22,255,240	99.3	$149,753	0.7	$22,404,993

*The annual amounts for Domestic Bullion deposits for 1838-1847 are shown in every report from 1838 to 1849 and add up to $116,788. The summary amount of $119,699 is shown in each of the reports from 1850 to 1861; the difference is $2,911. I have used the larger number in my calculations.

Non-California Domestic Bullion Deposited at the New Orleans Mint: 1838-1861

	Bullion Deposits
1838 – 1847	Alabama: $61,903; Georgia: $37,364; South Carolina: $14,306; Tennessee: $1,772; North Carolina: $741; Other Sources: $3,613.
1848	Alabama: $6,717; Georgia: $2,317; South Carolina: $1,488; Tennessee: $947.
1849	Alabama: $4,062; South Carolina: $423; Other Sources: $2,783.
1850	Alabama: $3,560; Other Sources: $894.
1851	Alabama: $1,040
1852	None
1853	None
1854	None
1855	None
1856	None
1/57-6/57	None
7/57-6/58	Georgia: $1,560; Tennessee: $164
7/58-6/59	None
7/59-6/60	Pike’s Peak: $1,770; Alabama: $662
7/60-3/61	Pike’s Peak: $1,667
Total	$149,753

Source: The Annual Reports of the Director of the Mint, 1838-1861.

Notes:

¹Donald H. Kagin, Ph.D., Private Gold Coins and Patterns of the United States (New York: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1981), p. 34.

²“The Mint at New Orleans with an Account of the Process of Coinage”, 1845; reprinted in the April 1968 issue of The Numismatist. The information contained in this monograph was reprinted in several forms throughout the 1840’s. In addition to updated editions of the monograph, versions of its contents were published in the January 1846 issue of Hunt’s Merchant Magazine.

³The Act of June 28, 1834 reduced the gold content of the US dollar to 23.2 grains of pure gold from 24.75 grains established by the Act of April 2, 1792 . This 6.3% reduction allowed US gold coins to circulate widely, in contrast to the “old standard” coins, which were overvalued in terms of silver and rarely seen in commerce.

⁴The Act of August 6, 1846 ended the practice of depositing US Government receipts in local banks and created sub-treasuries to hold them instead. Since most of the Government receipts at that time were in foreign coin, it had been common practice for the banks to keep them in that form, which made it easier to profit from fluctuations in exchange rates by exporting the coins. Also, since recoinage took up to several weeks (including travel time), it was expensive for private banks to lose the use of their money for what was, to them, an unnecessary reason. In contrast, some of the sub-treasuries were required to deposit their receipts at the Philadelphia and New Orleans mints, where the foreign gold was recoined.

⁵“The Mint at New Orleans with an Account of the Process of Coinage”

⁶The New York Assay Office, which operated from 1854 to 1982, was established primarily to refine California gold into ingots. While most of the ingots were exported to Europe, some of them were redeposited at the Philadelphia Mint and turned into coins. The operation of the New York Assay Office is described in detail in an article in the November 1861 issue of Harper’s New Monthly Magazine.