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?
I see you've bought into the yankee revisionism lock, stock and barrel.
You know nothing about NB Forrest except the PC crap that you've been spoonfed.
At this point South Carolina had already seized Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinkney, and the Charleston arsenal and was using those facilities and preparing the armaments and munitions in them for use against Sumter. I'd say Messers. Davis and Hunter were blowing smoke.
And MOST of all, the DUBIOUS leaded of the COWARDLY COVEN, YOU!
Free Dixie!
And people in Chambersburg and Lawrence would say the same about the confederates. Of course in Lawrence they added to their fun by actually shooting the unarmed civilians. Such scamps, those rebels. </sarcasm>
Jeebus Rustbucket, you’re not an idiot like cva or pokie! The legality of secession has been bandied about over and over again. You know as well as I do that there was no legally proscribed method of secession built into the Constitution.
You also know that, in the absence of clearly defined proscriptions and procedures, it was incumbent upon the parties to fall back on basic rules of conduct. Everyone knew the roles of Congress and of SCOTUS. All parties knew that an act as dramatic as dismantling the very fabric of our nation needed to be done carefully, deliberately, and honestly.
The south did none of that. They acted like indolent children - like your friend pokie there. They pulled a temper tantrum and then tore the place apart.
Who knows what would have occurred had they first exhausted the rule of law? It is possible that it would have come to the same conclusion - a violent separation. But had they done so I would be standing on your side of the argument just as I do the side of the revolutionary colonials. They did it right - the south did it wrong - and suffered the consequences.
stand watie! You've come back to us!
"Most Americans are familiar with General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. But such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman’s March was nothing new."
"In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them. "
What a fitting time to try out my new tagline...
I WISH!
Free Dixie!
So you'll admit that Lee's order was meaningless window-dressing? That he turned a blind eye to the abductions and forraging and destruction of private propety?
Me too. I admit that I miss his participation in these threads, and I confess that I fear the worst has happened to him. Sad.
I’ll second that. Pokie is a piss-poor imitation.
Sherman did not target women and children nor even rebel soldiers in his sniper order. He targeted secessionists, enemies of the peace of the nation who generally had no problem sending other Southerners to their death while they increased their wealth at home. To take the war to those people for a change was a just thing.
I too miss sw and his free dixie.
I wouldn't agree that they are idiots. And who exactly is "pokie?" I tend to avoid posts that call names, but I make an exception for your post here. And yes, I'm not an idiot.
You know as well as I do that there was no legally proscribed method of secession built into the Constitution.
There didn't need to be. The Tenth Amendment reserved that right for states or the people. And during ratification Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and Marshall agreed on resuming governance. Were the Federalists doing a massive bait and switch? Once in, you can't get out except with the approval of states or a central government that might be oppressing you or stealing your wealth? Whatever happened to resuming governance at their will as Madison and Marshall wrote?
You also know that, in the absence of clearly defined proscriptions and procedures, it was incumbent upon the parties to fall back on basic rules of conduct. Everyone knew the roles of Congress and of SCOTUS.
What absence? Seems clear enough to me. Once seceded "at their will", the South no longer was subject to the will of Congress or SCOTUS, just as the US was no longer subject to the British Parliament. The only problem was, the North forced us back into the Union after a four-year war. What happened to Madison's voluntary Union only bound by their consent?
But had they done so I would be standing on your side of the argument just as I do the side of the revolutionary colonials. They did it right - the south did it wrong - and suffered the consequences.
I'd be pleased to have you stand by my side, whatever the circumstances. We just do not agree on these aspects of our history. Respectfully on both our parts, I believe.
Oh please.
Chicken and egg. I also can't help but notice how far afield you've gotten from the original complaint regarding nonuniformed partisans sniping at a troop train.
After 145 years the only scars that would still be there would be the ones that are carefully cultivated.
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.