The $50 question: Grant or Reagan? - Page 2

If we can find it in our hearts to forgive Tiger Woods for his recent transgressions, then we can certainly forgive Andy Jackson.

From Alexander* to Hamilton**, coins have almost always had the face in profile. In fact, there is only one coin with a forward facing portrait on it, in the entire history of American coinage. It's a 2006 Jefferson nickel, and it looks hella creepy

Keep the faces in profile

But with that said... Yes, the FDR portrait looks like one of Julius Caesar or something (well, actually now that I just said that, it is sort of cool), and when I saw photos of FDR later in life (I'd been fascinated with coins as a kid), I was kind of perplexed that he looked virtually nothing like his coin


PS The Washington Quarter looks fine, IMHO

* Alexander the Great ** Alexander Hamilton. See what I did there? Eh?

This reminds me of that episode of Sesame Street, where they did 'Marital Infidelity' and 'Genocide' and then sang the 'One of these things is not like the other' song.

or...

Princess Kate just wrote something I didn't automatically hate. I'm not sure what to do now. I think I...retire?

Excellent. Of course, we'd have to color the bill red and yellow, it'd have to read "say your prayers and eat your vitamins," and the reverse would have to feature Hollywood Hogan with jet-black stubble.

I'm waiting for Congress to take bids. You can't tell me that they wouldn't slap Bill Gates, Richard Branson, or the Sultain of Brunei on there for the right price. Shit, China owns us anyway, how bout the Chinese Flag?

I say we just wait ten years and do the Snow Crash thing, and put the Gipper on the $500,000 bill. That might cover a hamburger, after hyperinflation.

How many other people in world history have a diary entry that reads "got shot by some radical, then went and gave campaign speech"?

TR is certainly my FAVORITE. Besides, he's one of the FOUR on Mt Rushmore; who's been better/as good since him - FDR and Ike, that's about it.

I vote for President Camancho

They're not? Damn, I've been living a lie.

Abe Lincoln can kiss my ass since we're trashing presidents.

If it weren't for U.S. Grant Lincoln would have been more than willing to sell the slaves down the river to reunify the country. Lincoln was happy to concede slavery in a de facto state during high level talks between himself and envoys from Richmond around the time of the Wilderness Campaign. Lincoln's star in history is because he was a. a pragmatist and b. a right bastard who wanted to win the war at all costs. All this "Great Emancipator" bullshit is what happens when you get to write the history books because you won the war.

And since I'm in a feisty mood (and a certain poster loves to throw his name around a lot) Jefferson can suck it too. No doubt the man was a genius but he was also a weak, conniving manipulator whose entire political policy centered around his fear of being foreclosed on due to the massive amount of debt he carried (because he was a shitty businessman), helped create the modern, rancorous partisan atmosphere we see in American politics (well, he and John Adams) and when he finally gained the highest office campaigning against the Federalist platform? He pretty much said "screw it I'm going to do what I want" and decided to use his office to carry out his vendetta against his political enemies.

I won't even get started on Jackson, Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, I'm well qualified to discuss these matters as my great-great-great-great-great Uncle was Vice President of these United States for a little over a month and probably was James Buchanan's main bottom bitch.

Mr Bancroft, I can understand what you are saying about Lincoln, but surely even you will admit he was a remarkable man in terms of his ambition and level of success in life. He was the right man for the times, if nothing else.

As for Jefferson, my Dad agrees with you. Jefferson is his least favorite founding father, and my Dad regularly describes him as "duplicitous". Whatever the defects of his personal character, and indeed, there are many, his status as a revolutionary American thinker is surely worthy of merit.

I've said my piece.



EDIT:


I think that the current American paper money is ugly. It's a witless mishmash of conflicting designs and colors. Random clusters of little yellow "20"s stamped like weeds across the $20, for example.

I went to Canada once with my dad, and they had awesome money. It had deep blue and purple colors, or it was the color of fall leaves. It had pictures of hockey games, and first nation totem poles.

Surely there is better American iconography that we can spotlight on our currency than the likes of a villainous character like Jackson.

Wouldn't scenes of the American West be nice?

Or famous moments in American history?

The shelf life of a bill is 6 months, and you could do new Bill designs in a 5 year series or something

It would deter counterfeiters, spur collection in a non traditional kind of currency, and look cool.


Just putting that out there for consideration.

There is are so many interesting and artistically satisfying examples of paper currency in this world, there is no reason our dollars (still a world standard for trade) should look so ugly and designed-by-committee.

There is some blue and purple Hong Kong note that is particularly cool looking, but I can't find a photo of it now. Keep an eye out though


EDIT 2: The old US currency was pure class. We should revert to that if we can't come up with something better. The status quo is unacceptable.

The old $20 for example features a much better profile on the white house. The east side I think.

The old $10 had the charming street scene with the people in top hats and the little cars (that are not actually supposed to be Model T Fords, they are just generic ye olde autos)

Um, thanks, I guess... I do my best.

Check out this high class purple blue HK note. It looks like something you'd pull out of your illegal calf skin wallet to pay the Johnny Cab with.





The sooner our money looks like this (or goes back to the old style, either way is cool with me), the better

Oh I know, I didn't mean to say he wasn't a great President, just wanted to point out that most historians would rank Lincoln or FDR higher.

Yea, see my response to Dickson. I agree with you completely.

Ugh? Mount Rushmore? You mean, site of the Exploded Sacred Mountain Travesty? The Black Hills were the holy ground of the Sioux and they were illegally stolen. Blowing them up in order to immortalize a bunch of grinning American schmucks was an enormously offensive move, and it's the reason I'm never able to look at Mt Rushmore as anything other than a gaudy embarrassment.

The only poll that really counts is the one at the end of the season.

Wait, what thread am I in again?

We need a PCS, the President Championship Series, so we're guaranteed a 1 vs. 2 matchup at the end of the year.

Bullshit, we're long overdue for a playoff bracket. Everybody knows the PCS is just an excuse to fuel $$ into... dead president's... corpses? shit I lost it

Arguing over who belongs in the category of the best presidents is sort of hard because nearly all the truly great ones ended up doing something monumentally fucked up that serves as a counterexample to his acts of greatness.

In terms of the sheer volume of great domestic policies her pushed through Congress, Lyndon Johnson is in the running for the title of Greatest President Ever. Monumentally fucked up thing he did that challenges that argument: the escalation of the war in Vietnam.

Lincoln managed to preserve the Union, end slavery, and serve as the first and last progressive Republican president. Monumentally fucked up thing he did: Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Imagine if Bush declared that every last American citizen in the country was an "enemy combatant" and you get a good idea of the scale of how fucked up this move was.

FDR is only slightly behind Johnson in terms of domestic policy brilliance--largely because the New Deal policy template is essentially The Great Society, Mark I--and he managed to steer the country through the Depression and the bulk of WWII. The New Deal's role in ending the Depression and building a large and thriving American middle class is largely why the 20th century was the "American Century." Monumentally fucked up things he did: internment of the Japanese-American community in the contiguous US and approving war crimes such as the firebombings of Germany and Japan.

For helping to literally build much of the what would become the US, founding the first public university in the country, writing the first freedom of religion laws in the country--which served as the template for the 1st Amendment--and helping to shepherd in both the the first French Revolution and British abolition of slavery, Jefferson is, arguably, the greatest president of all the Founders and in the running for greatest of all time. Monumentally fucked up things he did: I'm not really going to both enumerating them here. If you weren't a white, wealthy landowner in America in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Jefferson probably fucked you literally or figuratively.

It's like that for every great president in our sample of forty-four officeholders. The one thing I think all thinking and sane American can agree on is that neither Reagan nor George W. Bush belong anywhere near the top 40. Those guys are like the Bizarro World versions of the FDR and LBJ legacy and they were like that on purpose.

And see how he did that in a reasoned, thought-out, lengthy but not too lengthy, conversational style that still was engaging and humorous?

You should be taking notes, Kate. Until then, kindly and quietly SHUT THE FUCK UP.

You're like really tough dude. Did Kate take a shit in your cereal or something or do you just enjoy using put downs to make yourself feel better?

Anyways, this has been a really interesting thread with some great posts - It'd really be best if it didn't turn into a "Kate is Stupid" thread. Meanwhile, I hope your life and relationships with women improve so maybe you can learn to be a little less angry.

I've been overwhelmingly patient with Kate. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've called her out, but that Mount Rushmore post, followed by an admittedly funny Johnny Cab reference, followed by pictures of money. But when she's insufferable, she's really insufferable.

I agree that this shouldn't turn into a "Kate is stupid" thread, so I'll let it be and let the discussion continue.

Lincoln managed to preserve the Union, end slavery, and serve as the first and last progressive Republican president. Monumentally fucked up thing he did: Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Imagine if Bush declared that every last American citizen in the country was an "enemy combatant" and you get a good idea of the scale of how fucked up this move was.
================================================== ==================

And history has shown that the suspension of habeas corpus was the right thing to do at that time. Confederate sympathizers were attempting to sabotage several cities during that time, including Washington and Baltimore.

Plus, any decision or viewpoint by Chief Justice Taney should be suspect due to his pro-slavery and anti-Lincoln stances.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any doubt that Lincoln's the greatest president. A lot of the typical complaints about Lincoln (not the Great Emancipator, not a lover of blacks, tyrant, etc.) have been so debunked that they're not even worth refuting anymore.

I'm utterly depressed that I didn't even get a guffaw for my admittance that I'm related to the first homosexual Vice-President and refereed to him as Buchanan's main bottom bitch. Screw Kate, I want some damn praise.

I got more play out of copping to the distinct possibility my mother played fingercuffs with REO Speedwagon.

John Cassavetes beat up Ronald Reagan in The Killers. Therefore, John Cassavetes should go on the 50.

For the record, I just needed to make my point about Mt Rushmore when someone said real estate on that mountain was a rubric we should use for judging a president's relative 'greatness'. Just clearing that up, no need to reply further. I don't want to be accused of derailing a great thread.

If by "debunked" you mean mythologized to the point where his practical decisions to win the war in the face of borderline mutinous pressure from all corners to embrace "freedom and equality" for the slaves have turned into him being The Great Emancipator then yes, you're correct. A better name? "The Great Politician".

I guess I just trust plain trust McFeely more with his work on Grant with a little dash of Zinn for good measure.

I find the idea of comparing some guys from 200 years ago to anyone within the last 80 years somewhat ridiculous. The first dozen or so presidents are so overpraised, turned into legendary symbols of whatever and basically sainted, its unbearable.

Comparing those presidents, to start with, would require them to rule during roughly similar times and circumstances. How do you weigh a New Deal against Vietnam? WW2 against Iraq?

Thing is, some of that legendary legislature written and passed under famous presidents was probably not even a tenth as hard to get done than even minor changes in the last 20 years, because frankly, there were less cooks, no national television, less people and barely anyone gave a shit anyway, because it might have taken a decade to affect them, hell, even reach them in far away settlements.

The office of greatest power in any nation, so I believe, is always going to be held by people of questionable moral disposition, who will cause great strife, damage and be jackasses all around, simply because they have to be that way to get there in any system except outright hereditary monarchy.

I say we go really meta and have a picture of money on the 50$ bill. That'd be ironic!

I would pick up some books by Harold Holzer, including Lincoln at Cooper Union along with Lincoln by David Herbert Donald and Lincoln's Virtues by William Lee Miller and Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President by Allen Guelzo.

They'll set you straight.

I'll add that in my meaningless book, every president since Truman gets some bonus points simply for not letting the world actually end on their watch, which was a kind of pressure unimaginable even a decade or two earlier. Kennedy is a guy loved and hated largely for the wrong reasons (which is to say, a president), but you could make a case for putting him on currency simply for helming the country through an unprecedentedly perilous moment in human history. Would Lincoln or Jefferson or Washington have been up to the task? Who knows? There were stakes at work that were literally inconceivable in their lifetimes. Ranking figures separated by decades or centuries of history is rather absurd, and grows more so with each passing year.

Thanks, man. I enjoy your contributions to discussions as well.

When you go as far as seriously crippling the rule of law in a nation, I think the game is pretty much up. The Founders clearly thought that way, they state explicitly that the rights they are listing are absolute and inalienable. Ben Frankin, I think, perfectly sums up the position: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither."

Some might say he sacrificed Pearl Harbor to get the US into WW II.

I think that's probably correct but if that is what he did, it was necessary.

Sure, just go ahead and be a turd in the punchbowl.

The Constitution states that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion and or invasion. Clearly the situation at the time merited that suspension. Technically, Congress is supposed to suspend the writ, but with how splintered the body was along with the immediacy needed, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in order to stop Confederate soldiers from being arrested, then being freed, and fighting back on the front lines or attempting to sabotage Union forces.

You can argue about whether Lincoln's usurpation of Congressional power was the right thing to do, but it was one of the tough decisions Lincoln had to make in order to preserve our Union. If locking up and holding a few traitors to stop them from harming the war effort and thus attempting to destroy the Union for an extended period of time is a bad thing, then I can think of a lot worse to do.

You forgot one: pictures of all the people whose lives he ruined falsely accusing them of being communists during the McCarthy era. Lying-Snitch-Reagan traded their names for the political currency to become Governor of California.

The man could very well be our worst President (even considering Dubya), and is almost certainly the worst man to ever be President.

Put Reagan on the Penny so we can toss him in the gutter and let trains squash him.

In fairness to Reagan, Wilson was an open supporter of the Klan during his time in office, when they were at the height of their campaign of terror. His blurbed the opening credits of The Birth of a Nation and described the film in that blurb as "history written in lightning."

Also, Truman dropped a fucking nuclear warhead on a civilian population gleefully, twice.

Reagan's easily one of the worst policymakers ever to hold the office, but he's unfortunately not in the running for the worst man to ever hold the office. His worst character traits are lying, vindictiveness, and hypocrisy, which are kind of common to politicians.

Weirdly, the guy I think is easily the best man to hold office also is high on the list of the worst policymakers: John Adams. The guy is the only one of the Founders who never owned a slave and was an abolitionist and feminist in the eighteenth century, i.e. before it was cool.

Jefferson, to be fair, was also both of those things, but he also owned one of the largest collection of slaves in the country and wrote extremely racist things about black people. That is, Thomas Jefferson was a huge fucking hypocrite.

Where do you think "approach the BENCH" came from? Before Taft, judges sat in chairs.

Next topic for discussion-- Ben Franklin: Too awesome to be President?

Listen... no one did it 'gleefully'. There was little glee left for killing by the end of the war, we just wanted to get it over with. It also, most likely, saved lives. My dad was on a boat in the Philippines on his way over to Japan, and he would have been a part of any ground invasion had they not surrendered. I am therefore someone who must keep perspective on the bombing, because if they had not been dropped my dad might not have (most likely would not have) come home from the war

Less people died in the two atom bombs than died in the firebombing of Tokyo

And the fact we used the nukes perhaps allowed us to restrain ourselves from using them again. If we'd built them but left them unused, I think an itchy cold war trigger finger might have assured we gave them a combat trial at some point

When the Japanese exclude Nanking ETC from their history books, I hesitate to rend my clothes over an issue that saved American and Japanese lives.

Yeah, but his ideas directly helped pave the ideas for black emancipation and equality in the centuries that followed

BTW, How long till the Obama coin? Will it be out by the end of his Presidency?

Van Buren... his side burns were SO over hyped

Yeah, because "getting it over with" is a great excuse for dropping the atomic bomb. I agree with you that it was a decision that probably saved lives, but "getting it over with" is a poor choice of words.

You are counting the the deaths from radiation poisoning over the years, right?


I'd like to know what Nanking has to do with dropping the a-bomb, especially since I'm pretty sure I studied the dropping of the bomb in school.

Also, that's not a picture of an a-bomb you posted, just FYI.

Yeah, he seems really broken up by the dropping of the bomb here, where he describes the Japanese as "Japs" and "beasts."

First, there really is no way to morally justify using a weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population.

Second, the idea that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender is just bogus. What they were unwilling to do was surrender unconditionally. Requiring surrender without conditions sort of abrogates all the tenets of Just War Theory, which is the moral framework that the West has used for war since the beginning of the common era.

However, for the sake of the argument, let's assume we live in a world where that justification for dropping the bomb is actually a truthful one. Does the unwillingness of the Japanese to surrender really call for the use of a nuclear weapon?

Imagine that there is a bank robbery, the robber has killed some hostages, and storming the building is likely to result in the death of members of the police and more hostages.

Now imagine the police have rigged the robber's home with an explosive large enough to turn it into a crater and are going to set the bomb off with his family inside if he fails to surrender peacefully and without conditions. In this thought experiment, is this action by the police morally acceptable?

I won't critize any soldier of WW2 who calls them Japs, including my Dad. My dad has friends who were eaten by the Japanese. They acted like beasts, as did the Nazis. Sorry.
Sure there is, it saved lives that would have been lost in a ground invasion of Japan. It would have wrecked their whole nation. And the early atom bombs were hardly 'weapons of mass destruction' compared to the fire bombs etc. 60 million people died in WW2, about 175 000 from atom bombs.

Um, no. Sorry. There is alot of revisionist history going on here, but if you honestly think they'd have sat down and accepted a ground invasion, you're nuts. It would have been a blood bath of unspeakable proportions. Also, 'unconditioal surrender'? GD right. We let them off too easy as it is, and never tried enough of their top brass for war crimes like we did with the nazis

Was Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender immoral?



Yes. In my opinion. They had done far worse to others. And if it could end the war quickly, then let's do it ASAP. You have alot of luxury to sit back and opine on all this. People were dying every day of the war, and 60 million were dead by the end. Ending the war in 45 instead of opening up a new bloody chapter was absolutely the right move


Your analogy is preposterous. There is no analogy to be made for the situation the world found itself in at the end of the second world war. And if there were, 'bank robbery and hostages' would not be it. The 'Bank Robbers' (jap army) and the 'hostages' (jap civilians) were of one mind and one goal: rob the bank (and by that I mean rape and murder and torture their way to the top, because they believed in their racial superiority and right to exercise authority over all other nations and races) .

There was no other option. There was no time to waste. The Russians could have taken over Europe while we obliterated our resources in the pacific. There were no smart bombs. This was total war, and civilian deaths were not going to be avoided. Nor should they. The Japanese needed to understand the coast of their fascism.... And I'm sorry, but a quick atomic death is humane compared to the fate of the citizens of Nanking. It was not cruel, it was expedient

So, yea, the Nukes were totally acceptable. I don't think there is ever going to be another situation in world history where that is true, though. It was a unique circumstance.