Should we depict presidents and other dignitaries on coins?

Do you prefer that American coins depict presidents and dignitaries on coins, or would you prefer generic representations of our values, such as images of liberty, justice, etc.


Why or why not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

values and images of liberty would be ok on coins, that does mean something to us but it doesn't mean as much as presidents. presidents are a major part of history. They built our country, like Abraham Lincoln got us though the civil war, and George Washington helped us though the Revolutionary War . Franklin D. Roosevelt helped us though the great depression and world war 2. Dwight D Ehisinhower also help us though world war 2. U.S. Grant Also helped us though the civil war. James Madison helped us though the war of 1812. we should keep presidents on our coins, just like they had ancient rulers on there coins. That's my what I think. Thanks Noah

 

I must say that my favorite US coins have always been the Walking Liberty halves and the Standing Liberty quarters. Presidents on coins is OK, but the law that the president be passed some years should be enforced.

 

So you're saying he foresaw where we'd be today?

 

Washington didn't sign the Declaration of Independence, Noah, and our history is a little more nuanced, and complex, than that, but I respect your position.

 

????

 

oh sorry bout that

 

All is well; it's a common misconception. No harm, no foul.

 

Humans are flawed.
Justice, liberty, equality, are not. They are only flawed in their implementation by an imperfect person, which is all humans. So why depict an imperfect person on a coin?

Point number 2: All of our branches of government are coequal, yet is has been primarily presidents who are depicted on currency. While I understand that 1 president has the same power as all 535 members of the House and Senate combined or all 9 Supreme Court Justices combined, by memorializing ONE figure from ONE branch of government, we create the illusion of greater power or respect due to that one person and that one branch.

For those two reasons, I'd prefer we go back to memorializing values, not people.

 

You wouldn't be alluding to the utter lack of reasonable and civil discourse or, perhaps, the seemingly impossible concept of kindly respecting the positions of those who feel differently without slandering them in the most disgusting and repulsive ways possible, would you?

 

Those are all flawed as well, they're ideals that were made by humans. Even at the theoretical level that can be at odds with each other much like they end up being in practice.

Really at this point I think most people are ready to see liberty back on coins for no other reason than then they are just ready for some design changes that have been running forever.

 

Pull the people off our coinage and restore Liberty and the American Eagle to their rightful places. Succinct enough?

 

I'm still annoyed we went from Roman and Greek gods (which depicted those values) to getting rid of them and putting "in god we trust" instead. Such non sense!

 

Not here, I wouldn't.

 

Worthy, but who listens? I can't get into this without expounding political rhetoric....

 

Go back to allegorical representations of liberty. Edited: Political

Chris

 

I will close this down if we continue in the political direction. Thanks Jim

 

Those people would be wrong.

There's a very basic concept in the study of history called "presentism." It's the historiographical flaw that amateurs often make of attempting to judge history by the values of the present. In doing so, they often miss why history happened and what the motivations were.

If we engaged in presentism in judging Washington, Jefferson, Davis and Lee, they'd all be bastards for one reason or another. However, if we are engaging in REAL history and avoiding pushing modern values onto how we judge the past, I think we can make clear differentiation between those historical figures.

The opposition to the Confederate Statues is not just that they represent people who stood for slavery and treason. It is that juxtaposed to the Union (which stood for constitutionality and no slavery) there is no question the South was morally wrong and the North was morally just. To venerate those slave holders, then, would be wrong.

Yes, Washington, Jefferson, et al were all flawed, too. But they were moral leaders at their time. It's not as if Jefferson the slave holder was uniquely different from other political leaders in the United States or around the world at that time, for example. Most owned slaves. That doesn't mean Jefferson was a perfect guy, but it means his slave holding didn't make him any worse than his fellow man. But, his advocacy of liberty, justice, etc. beyond what the common man of his time did, is what makes him a important, venerable figure.

We can make a clear moral distinction between Lincoln and Davis, or between Grant and Lee, without any hesitation. Lincoln fought for abolishing slavery, Davis fought to uphold it. Grant fought against it, Lee fought for it. Judged by the values of 1860s, it was clear who was wrong. Lee and Davis had no redeeming values by the standards of the 1860s or by the standards of 2017.

In the case of people like Jefferson, he is clearly flawed by today's standards, but by the standards of the 18th and early 19th centuries and by many of today's values, he was and still is an extraordinary man.

However, the lay person is not equipped to engage in this sort of historical analysis over every statue or coin as I just did. So let's just avoid it and put ideas instead of people on our coins.

 

The Union contained a slave state which remained a slave state throughout the war...........