I think there might be a subtext here that's not explicitly mentioned (it would have been understood at the time): the emergence of the electric telegraph. > W

I think there might be a subtext here that's not explicitly mentioned (it would have been understood at the time): the emergence of the electric telegraph. > When people took them, they thought that they could convert them into this use at least, and that so long as letters had to go by mail they would have some value, and might therefore be safely regarded as currency. The 1860s were right around the time that the electric telegraph was reaching worldwide popularity. So here in midst of the Civil War they have a fiat currency based on a commodity that is vulnerable to collapse in value, due to a disruptive technology. The immediate threat to the currency is the USPS discontinuing acceptance of non-pristine stamps. And I think that's all the Times was intentionally referencing here. But I wonder if there was some understanding that stamps would make a terrible currency for this reason as well.