Should we depict presidents and other dignitaries on coins?

Your points are well taken, but those 535 members of the House and Senate can override a presidential veto, and the Supreme Court can overturn laws that were written by the House and Senate and then signed into law by the POTUS. It's called a system of checks and balances.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I gotta a problem with people that would blot out the past, and who would remove all markers and traces of it.

 

Exactly, of the the ones mentioned the House and Senate really have the most power and the President the least. You can actually make an argument that the state governors as a whole have the most power with their ability to amend the Constitution.

 

The North, right or wrong, threatened and opposed a culture and condition. The south could not survive without a cheap source of labor, just as the industrialized north could not do so either. Pushed to the brink, the south reacted. The resulting War Between the States unfolded. To deny that it ever happened, and to remove plaques, memorials and statues that are in remembrance, is tantamount to stating this event never happened. Military history studies such events. Are we to forget it all?

 

That was exactly my point. They are all equal. They are all equally balanced. So, to primarily depict presidents and not others is giving the public the misconception that the executive branch is more important. It is not.

 

You're kind of going off on a separate topic, here. If a statue being removed is going to make you forget it, then pick up a book or visit a museum.

 

Kids don't do that these days........

 

Lee did not fight for slavery, sir, and in fact, had you cared enough to study the man before conveniently pigeonholing his motivations, you'd know that he, in fact, abhorred it even more than the men you've decided to falsely award the moral high ground to. The civil war as a whole was much more complicated than the issue of slavery, and someone who so eloquently, and correctly, noted the folly of viewing historical figures through modern glasses, should know this.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."

Robert E. Lee

 

As I'm sure all or most of the people viewing this thread are aware it was once standard to have concepts such as liberty portrayed on our US currency. It was not until "recently" ,historically speaking, that presidents and historical figures appeared. Originally this was opposed as it seemed to mirror the practices of monarchist nations. However at this point such practices have a strong tradition benhind them. I personally like the current balance of a historical figure on the obverse and an image representative of ideology on the reverse. Americans typically have strong attachments to the president as our figurehead. However we do also have figures such as Franklin and Susan B Anthony who were not presidents due to their prominence and importance to our history. Not all presidents end up on our currency and not everyone who ends up on our currency has been president. I think we should, and will, continue to us the images of widely accepted historically significant Americans on our money regardless of any political office they may or may not have held.

 

Oh boy, here we go again.

 

Don't be an amateur who selectively quotes to try to make a point. The Confederacy fought to uphold the institution of slavery. Lee fought on that side. Based on his position on that side plus his level of knowledge, there is no doubt he knew what he was doing. No matter how much you, or he attempt to rationalize that behavior.

 

Get off your high horse.

 

The only amateur here is you, sir, and is evidenced by your narrow minded, and infinitely convenient, approach to a very complex situation. The one quote was an example of many, and you would know this had you taken the time to educate yourself prior to jumping on the virtue signaling bandwagon.

I am sorry, but you have, thus far, displayed an appalling ignorance regarding the very subject you've decided to preach about. It is quite clear you're familiar with only the glossed-over revisionist history of these men, and this goes well beyond Lee. I most respectfully implore you to study these people instead of painting with a very wide, and very wrong, brush.

 

Generally, an OP who starts a thread with "What do you think?" is aching for an argument. Most of this stuff is available on talk radio in nauseating quantities without dragging it here.

 

+1. Anyone who actually studies what happened knows Lee fought for the South because he was a resident of VA and he refused to fight against his state. He even opposed succession and had turned down offers from the South prior to VA announcing their succession, the North had even offered him positions as well. Anyone who thinks the civil war was a fight about the morality of slavery or that the North wasn't just as discriminatory needs to do some serious studying.

 

But, but, but.........what if the hate-mongers demand that the pages be torn out of the books, or even worse, just burn the books altogether?

Chris