"one signature paper" and "two signature paper"

The terms "one signature paper" and "two signature paper" in the finance industry historically referred to the number of authorized signatures needed on bank promissory notes or currency notes. Here's the significance:

One Signature Paper:

Implied Authority: A single signature, usually a high-ranking bank official, was sufficient to make the note a legally binding promise to pay.
Streamlined Issuance: This could facilitate rapid creation of currency, especially in emergencies or for certain types of transactions.
Greater Risk: Counterfeiting was easier, and a corrupt or compromised official could abuse this power to flood the market with unauthorized money.

Two Signature Paper:

Checks & Balances: Requiring two signatures (often bank president and cashier) instituted a level of oversight to protect against fraud or mistakes.
Increased Legitimacy: This signaled the note was backed by the institution's full authority, potentially increasing public confidence.
Slower Process: Could become a bottleneck where fast action was needed, creating inefficiencies, especially as transaction volume grew.

Why This Matters Historically:

Evolution of Trust: Early banknotes were more akin to IOUs. The shift to two signatures reflects efforts to create a standardized currency people trusted wasn't a gamble on any one individual.
Security vs. Flexibility: This tension exists in all financial systems. Easy money fuels growth but invites abuse. Tight controls add safety, but may stifle necessary risk-taking.
Counterfeiting Threat: Security features like watermarks etc., developed alongside the signature systems – no single method was foolproof, layering defenses was key.

Modern Relevance:

Digital Equivalents: While physical banknotes matter less, secure authorization on electronic transactions is the same issue in a new form. Think multi-factor authentication.
Legacy in Language: You may still hear old-school traders use these terms colloquially, even if the literal practice is outdated.
Cautionary Tale: Even with safeguards, financial systems are vulnerable to those seeking to exploit them. Understanding past flaws informs better design going forward.

Here's why U.S. Notes and Federal Reserve Notes existed as two distinct types of paper currency, especially in regards to their connection to bank-issued notes:

Historical Context: Banking in the U.S. before the Federal Reserve (created 1913) was a messy patchwork

National Bank Notes: Federally chartered banks could issue their OWN notes, backed by U.S. Treasury Bonds they held. This aimed to make currency uniform, but in practice, thousands of different note designs were out there.
U.S. Notes ('Greenbacks'): First issued during the Civil War. Directly backed by government credit, NOT tied to specific held assets like gold or bonds.

The Rise of Federal Reserve Notes:

Addressing the Chaos: The Fed's goal was a single, reliable currency. National Bank Notes were phased OUT, replaced with Fed Notes we use today.
Two Signatures Why?: Fed Notes had to bridge the transition. They signify 1) The Fed's obligation to redeem the note, and 2) The U.S. Treasury ultimately guaranteeing its value.
Gold Standard Era: Back then, currency WAS, in theory, convertible to gold. Notes weren't "just paper", but promises tied to a (finite) underlying asset.

Why Promissory Notes Matter:

Notes as IOUs: BOTH national bank notes and early Fed notes functioned as promissory notes. The holder could, in theory, demand redemption for the promised thing (first bonds, later gold, eventually just the abstraction of "legal tender").
Trust is Key: Currency only works if people trust the issuer has the means to back up their promises. The dual signature was meant to reinforce that during a shift between banking systems.

Modern Echoes

The Phrase Lingers: While the specific 'two signature' era is long past, the concept of currency still being tied to something of value persists in some economic fringe theories.
Ending Gold Backing: When Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard, this completely severed currency from a 'hard' asset basis. That was seismic, even if most people never handled a two-signature note.

The term "one signature paper" applied to a specific period of U.S. Notes, and it's a bit of a misnomer. Here's the breakdown of why:

What U.S. Notes Were ("Greenbacks")

Civil War Financing: Issued first in 1862, these were a way to pay Union expenses when traditional revenue wasn't enough.
Not Backed by Gold: Unlike some prior currency, they were "fiat money", their value based on faith in the U.S. government's solvency. This was controversial at the time.
Legal Tender Status: Despite debate, they were made legal to settle debts. This is key, as otherwise their value would rely on who voluntarily accepted them.

Where the Signature Confusion Arises:

Early Designs: Initially, the only signatures WERE the Treasury Register and Treasurer. This visually separated them from earlier notes with bank officials' signatures as well.
Multiple Series: Over time, U.S. Notes had design changes, including different combinations of signatures.
The Red Seal: The distinctive red Treasury Seal was more consistent than which specific officials signed. This may contribute to the misconception of "all being the same" in terms of backing.

Why "One Signature" Isn't Quite Accurate:

While the term is colloquially used, it simplifies a complex history. Even in the early years, some smaller denomination U.S. Notes had additional signatures for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

A More Accurate Framing:

It's better to think of "one signature" era notes as highlighting the shift to a centralized currency model where:

Federal Government is SOLE Issuer: No more patchwork of thousands of different bank notes.
Value Tied to Trust: The signature(s) represented a promise the U.S. stood behind its money, even when not directly linked to a stock of gold.

Thank you Gavilan;

That is something to seriously chew on regarding redemption and gold metal.

Attachment 7124

Financing the North

Attachment 7125

Interestingly I inquired about the GILPIN NOTES that began the whole fiat system in government. Apparently they were all turned in to the Treasury and all of them destroyed. Nobody at the Numismatic Museum had ever heard of them.