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 disagree with your entire statement from beginning to end.
First of all, a threat would not have 'backed down' anyone as is evidenced by the historical fact that Lincoln's invasion didn't have that effect.
Second, to use terms such as 'hotheads', 'madness' and 'insanity' in the context of people seeking relief from an oppressive, tyrannical government is directly equivalent to the LSM using similar descriptive terms about the present day Tea Party which is advocating the exact same thing.
Third, it was the 'sensible Southerners' that realized that the South could never have a equal and friendly relationship with the yankee politicians and their corrupt political machine.
And finally, your last statement is totally absurd and false. It is so obama like that I'm surprised that you didn't start with the obamaism, "Let me be clear.."
“Jefferson Davis might have desisted from attacking Fort Sumter.”
Quite true. Or Lincoln could have quietly withdrawn the small Garrison. Or sold the fort to South Carolina. The Union had abandoned all but 4 forts throughout the seven states that seceded, including nearby Fort Moultrie. There were negotiations to sell the fort throughout the first month Lincoln was in office. I wish it had been sold (or left alone)because it would have denied the hot heads the casus belli they desired. I think eventually the seven cotton states would have reunited with the rest of the Union, probably in short order.
Fort Sumter led to the secession of four more states, including the very consequential ones of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee (along with Arkansas), giving the south some of it best commanders, including Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Cleburne and host of others, and giving the United States the bloodiest four years in our history. A tragedy all the way around.
I still think that Buchanan could have done little more than he did. And I often wonder, had both sides chosen a less bellicose form of persuasion, if the Union would not have reformed along lines of more durable, restrained constitutional government. It is one of the great “What ifs” of history.
Get creative with that $1 coin...
Beat me to it (see my #43) - GMTA...
My opinion is that if Buchanan had been firm when South Carolina stood alone, no other states would have joined them. South Carolina would be isolated and backed down like she did in Jackson's day.
Second, to use terms such as 'hotheads', 'madness' and 'insanity' in the context of people seeking relief from an oppressive, tyrannical government is directly equivalent to the LSM using similar descriptive terms about the present day Tea Party which is advocating the exact same thing.
Disagreements over tariff policy do not constitute oppression. The impossibility of a desire to take human "property" into the territories do not equal oppression. The election of a president you don't like does not constitute oppression.
Third, it was the 'sensible Southerners' that realized that the South could never have a equal and friendly relationship with the Yankee politicians and their corrupt political machine.
The secessionist merely wanted any Yankee corruption out of the way of their own corrupt political machine. The secession process was often a farce.
And finally, your last statement is totally absurd and false. It is so Obama like that I'm surprised that you didn't start with the obamaism, "Let me be clear.."
What else could Lincoln do? He could not let a gang of usurping political crooks destroy the government of Washington.
My favorite Lincoln quote is;
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”…Abraham Lincoln.
Nuff said.
Disagreements over tariff policy do not constitute oppression. The impossibility of a desire to take human "property" into the territories do not equal oppression. The election of a president you don't like does not constitute oppression.
Unfair, financially crippling tariffs constitute oppression. Denying property rights constitute oppression. The election of a tyrant constitutes oppression.
The secessionist merely wanted any Yankee corruption out of the way of their own corrupt political machine.
Southerners wanted separation from the yankees, whom they had never gotten along with and, as you well know, that same sentiment continues to this day.
The secession process was often a farce.
Like Lincoln's oath to uphold the Constitution?
What else could Lincoln do?
Lincoln could have met with the Southern peace envoy that was sent to DC.
Lincoln could have removed the troops from Ft. Sumter.
Lincoln could have sought a peaceful resolution.
Tyrannical dictators do not do any of the above.
He could not let a gang of usurping political crooks destroy the government of Washington.
The first part of the above statement is reprehensibly offensive. 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.
The second part of your statement from above is either ignorance on your part or a lame attempt to insinuate that the South intended to overthrow the US federal government (which, btw, would have been better for all in the long run if we had). It's a total misrepresentation of the historical facts.
Secession has a cultural as well as a political goal, the Neo Yankee can't grasp we want away from them. We have watched the cultural war rain down from above for too long. Take your Homo sexualized, baby killing, Affirmative Action, high tax socialism and pack sand Yank(and take the left coast with you.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Colonel Kangaroo.. |
||
|
· Discover · Bronze Age Forum · Science Daily · Science News · Eurekalert · PhysOrg · · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · · History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · · |
|||
|
|
|
| Secession Timeline various sources |
|
|
|
|
| [Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.] Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..." |
December 27, 1856 |
|
|
|
| Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories. | January 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party | May 18, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln elected | November 6, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." | November 13, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." | November 14, 1860 |
|
|
|
| South Carolina | December 20, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Mississippi | January 9, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Florida | January 10, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Alabama | January 11, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Georgia | January 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Louisiana | January 26, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Texas | February 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln sworn in as President of the United States |
March 4, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arizona territory | March 16, 1861 |
|
|
|
| CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." | March 21, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Virginia | adopted April 17,1861 ratified by voters May 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arkansas | May 6, 1861 |
|
|
|
| North Carolina | May 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Tennessee | adopted May 6, 1861 ratified June 8, 1861 |
|
|
|
| West Virginia declares for the Union | June 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Missouri | October 31, 1861 |
|
|
|
| "Convention of the People of Kentucky" | November 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
I think y’all overestimate the incompatibility between Southerners and the rest of the country. I think I’d have more in common with most Yankees than I would with a decadent slaveowning aristocracy.
He did say that, but when he was able, he dealt slavery the fatal blow through the 13th Amendment. He earned the title of the Great Emancipator.
The Southerners who contributed to winning the Revolution often had very little in common with the losers that led their states into rebellion.
And the last of the original American culture, i.e. individual independence, Christian, hard working, self reliance, etc. is still in the South today but is in danger of being enveloped by the yankee tradition of unionized labor and entitlement.
I think you underestimate it.
I think I’d have more in common with most Yankees than I would with a decadent slaveowning aristocracy.
First of all, since you're a yankee, that would stand to reason.
Second, what do you mean by 'decadent'?
Who says I'm a Yankee?
Second, what do you mean by 'decadent'?
Most of them couldn't be bothered to get off their plantation to fight their own rebellion. Had to let the starving mudsills do their fighting for them.
He also earned the title of the Great Slaughterer as he was directly responsible for the deaths of 600,000+ soldiers and untold Southern women and children.
But of course, the cost is irrelevant as long as he freed a bunch of blacks from Africa who would later embrace socialism and elect a Kenyan who is destroying the country, even as we speak. /sarc
The Overmountain men who won at King's Mountain. Not only did they have little in common with the low country hotheads, a large number of their descendants were mountain Unionists in the Civil 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.