Written on board of US Steamer San Jacinto – anchored in Shanghai in October 1856 - a udreport to the New York Times on the “Progress of the Rebellion in China” indicated that the US udgovernment “was forced to buy the Carolus dollars at an increasing sacrifice in order to pay its high udsalaried officers, not for what they are bought, for a Carolus dollars count not more than a Mexican udor American with the pursers of the US navy”. In Shanghai the coin was at 50% premium above of udthe Mexican coin or any other silver coin of equal weight in circulation. No reason was given for udsuch wild appreciation other than “the prejudice of the Chinese” in favour of the old Spanish udAmerican coin. According to the source “one hundred Carolus could buy in any established udcommercial house in China 150 American dollar or other silver dollars (and) a hundred pound draft udon the bank of England maybe had for 250 or 270 Carolus, and larger or smaller ones in the same udratio” at the time when 450 or more pesos were required elsewhere in Europe or America for a udsterling. The reporter concluded that in no other place the famous coin was worth more than its udstandard value.udThat China had a problem with silver is well known to the economic and monetary history udliterature. In the last 20 years or so the silverization of China has been pivotal in the explanation of udthe Great Divergence and more traditionally has occupied the interest of economic historians of udChina and Asia since, probably it firstly occurred in the late 18th century. There is a wealth of udstudies on trade and monetary history of China, the Pacific Rim and globally which have udemphasized the role of silver in the Middle Kingdom since the 16th century. A more traditional udhistoriography has insisted on the de-silverization of China by mid-19th century, which some udassociate with the Daoguang Depression – provoked by the acute alteration in the exchange rate of udcopper cash to silver that characterized the period.
展开▼
