It's the only quarter that's "heads" on both sides....
Posted on 08/21/2010 7:17:45 AM PDT by 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?
“turn in”. . .”tune in”. It’s been a long day
It wasn't a mere speech. Those were the written words of the ratification convention in their official ratification document that were voted on and approved by the delegates. The ratification document was the official approval by a state of the Constitution.
In the case of New York, the convention listed statements that were consistent with what the Constitution meant, and Hamilton and future Chief Justice Jay voted for those words. I think what happened was that the Federalists said that a Bill of Rights was not needed, and that since the things the Anti-Federalists were concerned about were not delegated away, they remained with the states. The Anti-Federalists said, OK, then you won't mind putting some clarifying statements in the ratification documents that explain what the constitution means about certain important things. So, the Federalists did. That's speculation on my part, but it explains how such statements ended up in the ratification document.
IMO, those statements are some of the clearest statements of original intent that exist. They simply say what the constitution means to the people who ratified it and in some cases wrote it.
The ratification was not done on the condition that anything (i.e., amendments) be added to the Constitution. At one time the delegates had proposed that the ratification be on the condition that proposed amendments be passed and added to the Constitution. However, NY delegates voted to take out the words "on condition” and replaced them with "in full confidence" that their proposed amendments would be considered.
If the Federalists had backed away from clarifying statements like, "the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution" I doubt if New York would have ratified the Constitution. Something like seven or eight Anti-Federalists abstained on the final 30-27 vote and let the state ratify the Constitution.
The proposed NY amendments and "in full confidence" appeared in a separate list after the quote I just provided. The proposed amendments do not include statements about the reassumption of governance. That was in a clariifying statement. In the case of Virginia, Madison and future Chief Justice Marshall wrote the official ratification document along with three other Federalists. The statement that governance could be resumed "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" was actually from the Virginia ratification document. I attributed it by mistake to the New York ratification document.
The neo-Yankee is drawn to the truth, they complain but can't escape the de-brainwashing of the Yankee version of secession and the civil war that these threads provide. It perlexes them, but they can' seem to break away. The truth has that effect.
Then they're not going to find it in one of your posts. Or Idabilly's. Or Cowboyway. Or mojitojoe. Or...
By January 10, 1861, three states had already declared secession from the United States. Mississippi has declared Secession on January 9th, the day before, Florida was in the process of seceding as Davis spoke, Alabama would secede the very next day.
I think Rockrr & I were looking for something a bit more diligent and respectful of the other states from these so-called southern leaders.
You want bowing, scraping, groveling, and apologizing for his state exercising powers reserved under the Tenth Amendment and asking to go in peace with the same rights they had when they became a state? Don't hold your breath. Would our founders have apologized to the king for the Declaration of Independence?
I ran across another offer to pay for the forts. This one from Senator Hunter of Virginia. That brings the total to four offers that I know of (SC Commissioners, Hayne, CSA Commissioners, and now Hunter). Davis also made a proposal. [Source: Baltimore Sun editorial, January 5, 1861]
The resolutions presented to the Senate by Mr. Hunter and Mr. Davis are designed to facilitate an amicable settlement of the points in dispute on this aspect of the question. Mr. Hunter, in effect, provides for the resurrender to States of lands which they respectively ceded for the purposes of the general government; compensation being made to the latter by the States for property erected or deposited thereon. Mr. Davis, again, develops a plan by which federal troops may be withdrawn from States on the requisition of a Legislature or convention; subject to adequate provision for the protection of federal property. The two propositions are in perfect harmony, and both tend to the maintenance of peace.
Except on the supposition that the seceding states are to be invaded by federal forces, subjugated, and reunited to the confederacy against their will, what use will the general government have for forts and arsenals situated in another sovereignty? But as this idea of subjugation is at once absurd and barbarous, what can be said in defense of a policy which would retain means of aggression in the midst of another and an independent people? That the States themselves would object to having in their very center menaces upheld by the Union they have left, is not at all surprising. And hence on both sides are motives to the adoption of some friendly arrangement. The States will not allow their own forts to be turned against them; and the general government will have no need of forts in districts over which it has no longer jurisdiction.
None worth the paper they were written on if they weren't a part of pre-secession negotiations.
I don't want groveling and neither did the Unionists. They wanted the rule of law followed but that isn't what they got from the southern leadership.
The Civil War was the result.
Then you are as deluded as he is. CVA isn’t even in the right neighborhood, much less the right street.
Lee did not go into yankee territory to make war on civilians unlike Shermy whose sole purpose was to terrorize civilian populations.
[you]: Not by non-uniformed combatants, unless you're willing to suffer the consequences.
Tell that to non-uniformed combatants whose houses and cities had been burned and their food and valuables taken. War was certainly being made on them by the Union armies.
Robert E. Lee,
General Orders, No. 73
Headquarters, Army of Northern Virginia
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1863
The commanding general has observed with marked satisfaction the conduct of the troops on the march, and confidently anticipates results commensurate with the high spirit they have manifested.
No troops could have displayed greater fortitude or better performed the arduous marches of the past ten days.
Their conduct in other respects has with few exceptions been in keeping with their character as soldiers, and entitles them to approbation and praise.
There have however been instances of forgetfulness on the part of some, that they have in keeping the yet unsullied reputation of the army, and that the duties expected of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own.
The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed, and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement.
It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.
The commanding general therefore earnestly exhorts the troops to abstain with most scrupulous care from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property, and he enjoins upon all officers to arrest and bring to summary punishment all who shall in any way offend against the orders on this subject.
R. E. Lee
General
I take it that, if American troops come under sniper fire in Iraq, that you advocate going into Iraqi neighborhoods, burning their homes and killing a few women and children.
Like I said, you've got issues...
And if I post a link to Sherman’s orders forbidding his troops from looting and pillaging will that shut you up about his campaign in Georgia and South Carolina and make you think he was a noble man?
Enjoy!
Damn, Mikey, I'll bet you feel like a fool.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What law of the Constitution was broken by secession?
The Civil War was the result.
I don't think we'll ever agree on who caused the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.