How the Worst President Ever Ended Up on a Controverisal New Coin (James Buchanan)

AOL News ^ | 8-19-2010 | Alex Eichler

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Today, the U.S. Treasury released a $1 coin commemorating former President James Buchanan. And people aren't happy about it.

To understand why, some background is helpful. In 2007, thanks to a bill promoted by then-Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, the Treasury began minting $1 coins with the likenesses of former Presidents, starting with George Washington.

The coins -- which have been appearing ever since, featuring a new President every three months -- are meant to improve use and circulation of America's dollar coins, which are often seen as an awkward misfit among currency, neither fish nor fowl.

Sununu's initiative drew inspiration from the 50 State Quarters Program, which launched in 1999. The runaway success of that effort, according to his legislation, "shows that a design on a U.S. circulating coin that is regularly changed... radically increases demand for the coin, rapidly pulling it through the economy."

The bill also suggested that a program wherein Presidents are featured on a succession of $1 coins, and First Spouses commemorated on gold $10 coins, could help correct a state of affairs where "many people cannot name all of the Presidents, and fewer can name the spouses, nor can many people accurately place each President in the proper time period of American history."

So the bill passed, and the Washington dollar coin appeared not long after. It was followed by Adams, Jefferson, et al., with the First Spouse coins minted alongside.

Now we're up to Buchanan, the fifteenth President, who took office in 1857 and turned things over to Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and whose coin (produced at the Philadelphia and Denver Mints and purchasable through the U.S. Mint website) has occasioned the aforementioned grousing. Here's where some feel the coin program is falling short:

1. The coins aren't circulating.

Many Americans have never gotten into the habit of using $1 coins, and as a result, over a billion commemorative Presidential coins are sitting around in a stockpile at the Federal Reserve. As BBC News reports, if these coins were stacked up and laid on their side, they'd stretch for 1,367 miles, or the distance from Chicago to New Mexico.

2. They don't seem to be educating people, either.

In February 2008, a year after the first presidential coins were minted, The New York Times reported that a survey had found large numbers of American teens to be woefully ignorant of their country's history. It was far from the first time Americans had gotten a dismal grade in history, suggesting that Sununu's commemorative-coin campaign isn't having much of an effect in that arena, either.

3. James Buchanan was kind of a crappy president.

In fairness, this is a grievance with a specific president, not the presidential coins program as a whole. Still, it seems to come up in all the coverage of the new coin: Buchanan wasn't very good at his job.

That's the consensus of historians, anyway, who have traditionally censured Buchanan for his failure to prevent the Civil War. Last year, a C-SPAN survey of historians granted Buchanan the dubious distinction of worst president ever.

Still, all of this isn't reason enough to declare the commemorative-coins program a total failure. If more coin collectors start avidly pursuing the presidential coins, it could have the effect of pushing down the national debt, thanks to the way the value of the coins fluctuates with their availability. And if the dollar coins were to catch on and replace paper $1 bills entirely, it could save the country between $500 and $700 million each year in printing costs.

Plus, if things stay on track, 2012 will see the release of the Chester A. Arthur dollar coin -- marking the first time that long non-commemorated president's face has ever appeared on any nation's currency. And who are we to deprive him of that?

[Non-Sequitur]

But at least the long since departed GOPcap was willing to make an argument based on substance, something this current crop of neo-secessionist runts seem incapable of.

I would say that he was capable of making an articulate argument. But there is no substance to his statement; Texas v White was an invalid decision because he said it was. Period, end of story.

[Non-Sequitur]

They had never given up the right to secede from the Union, their creation.

For five of the original seven rebel states, the Union was the creator and not the creation. And for all of them, the remaining states did not give up any of their rights or relinquish any of their Constitutional protections just because other states wanted to leave. What clause of the Constitution allowed you to strip them of those rights so seven states could secede?

[rockrr]

Why should they do that?

Oh, I don't know...so they could avoid a bloody and ultimately futile war by doing their due diligence first?

Reminds me of that old saw, "He'd rather beg forgiveness than ask permission".....except for the beg forgiveness part...

[rockrr]

Why should they do that?

Oh, I don't know...so they could avoid a bloody and ultimately futile war by doing their due diligence first?

Reminds me of that old saw, "He'd rather beg forgiveness than ask permission".....except for the beg forgiveness part...

[rockrr]

Sorry for the double-tap.

[mstar]

You speak of depredations against Unionist East Tennesseans. Indeed, that is often all you talk about. I condemned those depredations and asked if you would likewise condemn the depredations by Sherman's men in Places like Columbia, South Carolina. You didn't condemn them. Perhaps that was an oversight on your part. I ask you again, do you condemn depredations, robberies, rapes, and home burnings by Sherman's men?

Don't you remember, crimes are not crimes if the target victim is of a certain class.

Some gleanings from FR thread, "The Wisdom Of William Tecumseh Sherman and the War On Terror" July 26, 2010;

"First there are the large planters, owning lands, slaves, and all kinds of personal property. These are, on the whole the ruling class. They are educated, wealthy, and easily, approached. In some districts they are bitter as gall and have given up slaves, plantations, and all, serving in the armies of the confederacy; whereas in others they are conservative. None dare admit a friendship for us, though they say freely that they were at the outset opposed to war and disunion. I know we can manage this class, but only by action. Argument is exhausted, and words have lost their usual meaning. Nothing but the logic of events touches their understanding; but of late, it has worked a wonderful change. If our country were like Europe crowded with people, I would say it would be easier to replace this class than to reconstruct it, subordinate to the policy of the nation; but as this is not the case, it is better to allow the planters with individual exceptions, gradually to recover their plantations, to hire any species of labor, and to adapt themselves to the new order of things." from Sherman's "Memoirs"

"I guess the bottom line here is that Sherman's visit to Columbia SC was no atrocity, unless you were a planter class white secessionist." mac_truck

"Sherman's goal in his own words (see memoirs) was to destroy the planter class of the south" mstar

"An admirable goal. I'm glad he succeeded as well as he did. As individuals, I'm sure many had admirable qualities, but as a political class, the plantation drones were pure evil, greedy for power, politically mendacious and full of contempt for their fellow Southerners of both races." Colonel Kangaroo

"To hell with the lower class, in fact (Sherman) despised them." mstar

"If he did, so did a large segment of the Confederate big shots many of whom were happy to make $$$ by having their slaves grow cotton while the families of the mudsills doing their fighting starved." Colonel Kangaroo

"There was always a sorry crowd in the Deep South who looked down on people who did their own work. The nation is better off that they lost their rebellion. It is a chilling thought that such people might still have real power had they not been beaten down by Lincoln and his liberators." Colonel Kangaroo August 21, 2010

These individuals along with others, have flagrantly slandered a class of Americans as drones, domestic and political criminals, extortionists, depraved individuals with the sole goal of the establishment of a elitist dictatorship by any means of criminal activity including torture and murder. Their private homes and churches have described as pagan shrines dictated to their own likeness. On one thread those defending the south were instructed "to go back and beat your slaves".

So far, not one name or credible documentation has been given as proof of these conclusions.

So I suppose the "The Blue Avengers Comic Book History Club" has concluded a vague class of down trodden workers, aka "those like them", had a CarteBlanche to do "whatever" to another class of their fellow Americans.

So did you guys take lessons with Lenin and their Uncle Joe, in addition to your Uncle Billy?

Did you throw in some classes with Hitler on the subduing and taming of the rouge countries that dare not be a part your plan?

Are you guys hearing what you are saying?

[Verginius Rufus]

Towards the end of his life Washington spent a lot of energy planning how his slaves could be set free and have a way to make a living (not easy in a society dominated by slavery). His family didn’t share his sentiments. I think this runaway slave was one of Martha Washington’s personal servants and she was the one determined to get her back.

[mac_truck]

Why should they do that?

Out of respect for their fellow countrymen and for the US Constitution they swore to uphold. Secession may have been legally possible in 1860 but the way the Confederacy went about it wasn't.

[mac_truck]

Did you throw in some classes with Hitler on the subduing and taming of the rouge countries that dare not be a part your plan?

Rouge countries? Have you been playing in mommy's cosmetic case again?

[cowboyway]

Are you guys hearing what you are saying?

They hear it and their rabid words of hate are sweet music to their ears.

Why do the coven hate the Southern planter, the 'mudsills', the Confederate soldiers (including RE Lee, Jackson, et al), FReeper Rebs and the South in general?

Because they were, and still are, scared of us.

"The Blue Avengers Comic Book History Club"

Good one! :~)

[rustbucket]

For five of the original seven rebel states, the Union was the creator and not the creation.

Seems to me the later states have the same rights and powers as the original 13. If not, there are two classes of states. IIRC, Congress passed a law saying new states had the same rights as old states.

The states that seceded never gave up their power to secede. As John Marshall said, "... does not a power remain till it is given away?" Nowhere in the Constitution is there any prohibition against secession. But we've been through this many times before.

And for all of them, the remaining states did not give up any of their rights or relinquish any of their Constitutional protections just because other states wanted to leave. What clause of the Constitution allowed you to strip them of those rights so seven states could secede?

What rights are you talking about? Where in the Constitution is the right that says Northern states could, with impunity, strip mine the Southern economy with a protective tariff that benefited Northern industrialists and provided jobs for Northern workers? Where is that right protected? Isn't that basically taking from those who have and giving it to their own voters and financial supporters? Hmmm?

Where is it said, that Northern states could sign on to a Constitution that said fugitive slaves were to be returned to their owners, then turn around and pass laws that blocked the return of those slaves? Sounds like a bait and switch.

Texas had to fund its own protection from Indian and Mexican invaders despite what was in the Constitution because Northern Congressmen would rather spend the money on a pet project to study the Great Lakes. That's OK. Who cares about Texas?

At some point, the South was going to say, "Enough of this. We exercise our power to leave." And they had that power. The Virginia ratification written by Madison and Marshall said people could resume their own governance "whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." The New York Ratification voted for by Hamilton and Jay said that the Constitution meant that they could reassume their governance "whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

If it weren't for Southerners there never would have been an American Revolution and you yanks would still be paying homage to the Crown.

I realize that you refuse to acknowledge anything positive in Yankee history, but surely the words "Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill" mean something to you, don't they? "Boston Tea Party" maybe? New Englanders were in a shooting war with the British while southerners were still dithering and passing the occasional statement of sympathy. And the New Englanders didn't call it "secession," either. They called in what it was, a rebellion.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

You speak of depredations against Unionist East Tennesseans. Indeed, that is often all you talk about. I condemned those depredations and asked if you would likewise condemn the depredations by Sherman's men in Places like Columbia, South Carolina. You didn't condemn them. Perhaps that was an oversight on your part. I ask you again, do you condemn depredations, robberies, rapes, and home burnings by Sherman's men?

I go overboard about East Tennessee because so many Southerners are unaware what the Confederacy did to those people and it deflates the Lost Cause myth of a United South.

Murder and crime are evil whether committed by Sherman's men or by Confederates. But Sherman never ordered murder and rape and his destruction to further the successful end of the war was legitimate.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Why do the coven hate the Southern planter, the 'mudsills', the Confederate soldiers (including RE Lee, Jackson, et al), FReeper Rebs and the South in general?

One of the reasons I don't respect the planter class is what they did to my mudsill ancestors and many thousand like them.

As far as Lee, I respect the fact that he recognized the stupidity of secession. Too bad Virginia did not stay in the Union or it might have been Robert E. Lee burning South Carolina instead of Sherman.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Don't you remember, crimes are not crimes if the target victim is of a certain class.

Ironic coming from a neo-reb, a group of people who often seem to think that Southerners were less dead if killed by Confederates.

[mstar]

Dear Lord, is this the best you can come up with? Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Have you been playing in mommy's cosmetic case again?

No sweetie, this Mommy owns the cosmetic case to use if or when she chooses. How about yours?

Now hit "spell check" again and see what you come up with. . . might be a great big word.

[MikefromOhio]

How would YOU know I’m Godless?

Better yet, who made you the final arbiter of what is all Christian?

[MikefromOhio]

I doubt it. Where are your ancestors from? Kenya, like your hero?

I think it's funny that the guy YOU voted for is somehow my hero.

and I'm pretty certain my ancestors would think this entire argument is stupid and lacks any realistic value.

[mstar]

Ironic coming from a neo-reb, a group of people who often seem to think that Southerners were less dead if killed by Confederates

huh?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘And they had that power’

Obviously they did not. Perhaps you meant that they had a legal right to do so, which seems not to be totally without dispute. If they had the power they would have won.