Hamilton Wins, Jackson Loses

[GannonFan]

Avoiding an amazingly historical oversight, it appears as if Sec of the Treasury Lew has actually read some portion of history now and is set to announce that they will not replace Alexander Hamilton on the front of the $10 bill as they were previously set to do (the plan was since the $10 bill was next in the redesign sequence to take him off and put on the first woman on a bill). Instead, after realizing the monumental contributions Hamilton did in the founding of the nation and, oddly enough, the Treasury Department, they instead will now do something on the back of the $10 bill to honor women's history in this country in general and then look to bump off Andrew Jackson from the more widely used $20 bill when that comes up for redesign in a few years. Jackson is certainly fair game to be bumped considering, in his time, he did set a course for what could be considered genocide in relation to the Native Americans. He still gets props from me for his stance against Calhoun and the nullifiers in South Carolina, but that only made them wait a decade or two before finally going through with secession.

Oh, and the run away success of the "Hamilton" musical certainly played a part as well (and obviously Ron Chernow's book that was the inspiration for the musical as well).

http://www.playbill.com/article/treasur ... com-351602

[YoUDeeMan]

Go Hamilton!

[Pwns]

Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

[GannonFan]

Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

[93henfan]

I can't wait to see the first woman President's face on a bill! Wonder if she'll be wearing a Nehru jacket or a pant suit?

[Ibanez]

Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

[ASUG8]

When interviewed, Hamiliton quipped "well, at least I won THIS duel."

[Skjellyfetti]

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

[Ibanez]

He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

I know. I just like feeding the trolls.

[GannonFan]

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

I know. I just like feeding the trolls.

Eh, it was always an easy answer - Lincoln of course would be viewed favorably even though, by today's standards, he certainly was racist. Compared with his southern contemporaries who were fighting for the right to keep people in bondage because of their race (and clearly their own self interest), Lincoln would and will always appear to be vastly more benevolent and noble. We don't compare him to people of today, we compare him to people of his time, that's why he looks so good.

[DSUrocks07]

He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

Did we not have a right to leave? Or was our relocation here set in stone as the Union was.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

Did we not have a right to leave? Or was our relocation here set in stone as the Union was.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

It's like Hotel California.

[DSUrocks07]

He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

Ahh yes, Liberia...what happens when you take Detroit and make a nation out of its "leadership".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[OL FU]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

[Ivytalk]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

But keep Ben Franklin on the $100 bill. Cool guy. Renaissance man who invented a lot of stuff.

[OL FU]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

But keep Ben Franklin on the $100 bill. Cool guy. Renaissance man who invented a lot of stuff.

Agree. And he got laid a lot too

[OL FU]

And I agree with a previous post. Put Martin Luther King Jr. on a bill. Lincoln won the war which ended slavery. MLK won the war that actually freed the slaves

[CitadelGrad]

Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

Lincoln didn't start that war to end slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to do that, as it permitted Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland to keep slavery, and permitted any Confederate state that voluntarily rejoined the Union to keep its slaves.

The war was about money. There was no federal income tax, so most federal revenues came from duties on imported goods. Most of those revenues came through Southern ports.

[DSUrocks07]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Now THIS is political correctness.

[Ibanez]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

But keep Ben Franklin on the $100 bill. Cool guy. Renaissance man who invented a lot of stuff.

Plus he liked the whores.

[Vidav]

I was really upset when it was announced that Hamilton was being removed. He should stay on our currency. Grant should be removed first, then Jackson.

[∞∞∞]

I'm just curious, but how often do you guys still use paper money or coins? Personally, I can't even remember the last time I touched a bill.

[Vidav]

I'm just curious, but how often do you guys still use paper money or coins? Personally, I can't even remember the last time I touched a bill.

All the time.

[OL FU]

I'm just curious, but how often do you guys still use paper money or coins? Personally, I can't even remember the last time I touched a bill.

I use mostly 1 and 2 dollar bills. They fit nicely in the garter.