Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Worst President Ever Ended Up on a Controverisal New Coin (James Buchanan)
AOL News ^ | 8-19-2010 | Alex Eichler

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?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: civilwar; coincollecting; coins; currency; godsgravesglyphs; history; idabumpkin; jamesbuchanan; presidents; traitorworshippers; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,337 next last
No, Carter and Obama are not eligible.
1 posted on 08/21/2010 7:17:49 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Sunnunu who gave us Souter?


2 posted on 08/21/2010 7:19:18 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
I like the Bill Clinton quarter.


3 posted on 08/21/2010 7:21:51 AM PDT by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Why hasn’t Tim Geithner signed any money? Every other Sec of Treasury has. Come on Timmay, put your name out there!


4 posted on 08/21/2010 7:22:31 AM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Buchanan was not the worst president, but he probably is in the top 20. I think that distinctive title should go to Wilson. But Obama, before his term is over, is going to wrest the title away, I think.


5 posted on 08/21/2010 7:23:01 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (There is no "common good" which minimizes or sacrifices the individual. --Walter Scott Hudson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

He might have been trying to divert attention from a possible “worst Supreme Court nomination” commemorative coin series.


6 posted on 08/21/2010 7:23:45 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
The worst President was Carter, and that's because Soetoro isn't President.
7 posted on 08/21/2010 7:25:04 AM PDT by Vincent Jappi (I like cats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
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

And, if we stopped printing money to waste on bailouts, entitlement programs, and failed kenysian economics we'd save BILIONS of DOLLARS in costs.

8 posted on 08/21/2010 7:25:52 AM PDT by Repeat Offender (The buck, it seems, never gets to Obama; a surprise considering how many they print)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Buchanan was not the worst president, but he probably is in the top 20. I think that distinctive title should go to Wilson. But Obama, before his term is over, is going to wrest the title away, I think.

For long term damage I think Wilson is worst but Buchanan is close. Had he reacted like Andrew Jackson did in the Nullification Crisis I do not think we would have ever reached a Civil War.

9 posted on 08/21/2010 7:27:03 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
3-Bucks
10 posted on 08/21/2010 7:27:07 AM PDT by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
Why hasn’t Tim Geithner signed any money?

Good question. I've been waiting on that one myself. I have a "TAX CHEAT" stamp ready to use whenever I see little Timmy's name on a bill.......

11 posted on 08/21/2010 7:27:33 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

I believe that Stroker has already wrested the title.

He is “historic”, you know.


12 posted on 08/21/2010 7:30:35 AM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I didn’t even know there were $1 coins until I got four of them in change from a machine in a parking garage! And I had no idea there were $10 gold coins until I read this article.

They guy at a toll booth the other day couldn’t even tell me if the correct change machines on some lanes would accept the $1 coin.


13 posted on 08/21/2010 7:31:17 AM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Coins are bad from the environment. They use 10 times the fuel to transport.
/s


14 posted on 08/21/2010 7:40:40 AM PDT by nhwingut (Palin/Bachmann '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
are meant to improve use and circulation of America's dollar coins

The best way to improve circulation of dollar coins is to stop printing dollar bills.

15 posted on 08/21/2010 7:41:58 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Even Hitler had Government run health care, but at least he got the Olympics for Germany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Here's what the Mint should do:

(1) Stop producing the $1 bill and gradually withdraw remaining bills from circulation

(2) Recall ALL $1 coins - ALL OF THEM - and create a single new $1 coin that's as heavy and distinctive as the British pound that features the likeness of one of the Founders, preferably John Hancock

(3) Abolish the penny and nickel, and make the dime the same size as the nickel.

16 posted on 08/21/2010 7:42:55 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
FDR 1933 to 1939

He gets a pass because of his War leadership. but is handling of the depession was terrible.

17 posted on 08/21/2010 7:44:30 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Even Hitler had Government run health care, but at least he got the Olympics for Germany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
At first I thought it was about the Kenyan item:


18 posted on 08/21/2010 7:48:50 AM PDT by mikrofon ("Change" You Can Believe In)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

“Sunnunu who gave us Souter?”

I think that was his father.

Well, if the Roman Empire had issued a commemorative series for Emperors they would have had to issue a Caligula coin. I suppose Buchanan wasn’t quite THAT bad.

Before the Lincoln penny we never used to put any actual people on our coins. We ought to go back to just Liberty.


19 posted on 08/21/2010 7:49:41 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Had he reacted like Andrew Jackson did in the Nullification Crisis I do not think we would have ever reached a Civil War.

Agreed, but you have to understand that Buchanan was our first Nancy Boy president and probably had other, more important (in his demented mind) distractions. Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . which modern president does that sound like?

20 posted on 08/21/2010 7:52:45 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

1922 was the last time a decent dollar coin was minted. And possibly the worst...tough choice but the SBA is near the top clunker.


21 posted on 08/21/2010 7:57:44 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

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...”


Yes, it is very important to name the first spouses. It is only fair.

Idiocy rules the day.


22 posted on 08/21/2010 8:01:11 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Pray for our leaders: Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
consensus of historians, anyway, who have traditionally censured Buchanan for his failure to prevent the Civil War

Lincoln is the one that should be censured for starting the War of Northern Aggression.

Buchanan's mantra was "I acknowledge no master but the law." He believed that secession was illegal but he also believed that starting a war to stop secession was also illegal, and, IMO, immoral, because a union forced at gunpoint is no union at all.

23 posted on 08/21/2010 8:02:19 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

The really best way is to GIVE them away.


24 posted on 08/21/2010 8:03:55 AM PDT by donhunt (Where does this totalitarian ashwipe get off telling me I can't chose for myself?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Ack! Gaudiest coin design ever!


25 posted on 08/21/2010 8:10:45 AM PDT by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

“...That’s the consensus of historians, anyway, who have traditionally censured Buchanan...”

Of course historians never get to much of a consensus on any subject.


26 posted on 08/21/2010 8:14:31 AM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
The bill also suggested that a program wherein ... 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,

Yeah, everyone's going to spend a few hundred dollars per coin to get a half ounce of gold just to learn the names of the first ladies.

27 posted on 08/21/2010 8:16:45 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere
All the Roman emperors issued coins with their own likenesses and legends on them, including Caligula (C. Caesar Augustus), and there are coins with Caligula's head on them in existence.

In the New Testament, when the Pharisees and Herodians ask Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar, that is, to the Roman emperor, he asks to be shown a denarius and then asks "Whose image and inscription is this?" and they have to reply, "Caesar's" (probably meaning either Tiberius, the reigning emperor, or his predecessor Augustus).

28 posted on 08/21/2010 8:21:40 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Having so many different versions of the $1 coin is just going to encourage hoarding by collectors.

Since they got rid of the Lincoln memorial on the reverse of the penny and replaced it with an imitation of a state highway marker, now is the time to use the back of the penny to commemorate all of the counties. If they did 2 a week it wouldn't take that many years. It's the logical next step after doing the states on the back of the quarter.

29 posted on 08/21/2010 8:26:38 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

As I’ve said before, we cannot get rid of the $1 bill. What are we going to tip strippers with?


30 posted on 08/21/2010 8:32:04 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Buchanan would not have needed to start a war. A threat, such as Andrew Jackson delivered, would have been enough to make the hotheads back down and more importantly it would have emboldened the more sensible Southerners to counsel against the madness.

Once the insanity was loose and the rebs attacked, Lincoln had no choice but a resort to armed force.

31 posted on 08/21/2010 8:39:16 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Exactly.

Buchanan gets a bum rap for following the Constitution while Lincoln gets plaudits for ognoring it.

32 posted on 08/21/2010 8:39:30 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

There have been 44 US presidents, more or less.

The US mint should have printed all of them first, then produced sets in typical coin cardboard containers displaying all 44, for $60, providing $16 for shipping and handling. Or $15, if they included one coin that was reversed, to show the common reverse the coins share.

Then, as an added bonus, they could sell $50 rolls of coins of a particular president, and for the real collectors, a *silver* set of presidential $20 coins (silver is about $18.50/ounce right now), for about $900.

A silver $20 coin would have to be much more artistic, however, but with a classical look. The avant garde look they’ve been trying on coins recently is pretty lame.


33 posted on 08/21/2010 8:44:10 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere
Before the Lincoln penny we never used to put any actual people on our coins. We ought to go back to just Liberty.

Traditionally we had either Liberty, or an male Indian on our coins. Ideally we would go back to that with Liberty on the penny, dime, half dollar. The Indian head would be on the nickel, quarter and dollar.

Ues these as templates:


34 posted on 08/21/2010 8:48:40 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I don’t like the avant garde look either. to me it’s an offense against the dignity of the government. Maybe it’s a symptom of the same mindset that also cheapens the monetary value of the currency!


35 posted on 08/21/2010 8:50:05 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

IMHO the reason no one wants $1 coins is the bulk. I can carry 20 $1 bills in my pocket and never notice the difference.

If I’ve got 20 $1 coins in my pocket, I’m leaning sideways. Although if I put them in my other pocket, it would balance out my carry piece.

Maybe that’s the solution. Let everyone carry and they can use the right number of coins to balance out the load.


36 posted on 08/21/2010 8:54:00 AM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
My Indian Head nickel image disappeared. Let's try that again:


37 posted on 08/21/2010 8:59:22 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

There is an answer to your question. Think about where you drop coins in machines. I will say no more.


38 posted on 08/21/2010 9:03:46 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (I lived in VT for four years. That was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

“Buchanan was not the worst president, but he probably is in the top 20. I think that distinctive title should go to Wilson. But Obama, before his term is over, is going to wrest the title away, I think.

For long term damage I think Wilson is worst but Buchanan is close. Had he reacted like Andrew Jackson did in the Nullification Crisis I do not think we would have ever reached a Civil War.”

I don’t agree at all. Buchanan was not a stellar President but he was not close to the worst. He has frequently been pilloried by leftists who say that, if only he had taken some unspecified action, the Civil War could have been averted.

You mention Jackson and the Nullification Crisis. Different time. Jackson was responding to a tariff and although he blustered and threatened force, a tariff (tax) is quintessentially easy to compromise. It was reduced, with an assist from Henry Clay, and SC rescinded its nullification ordinance. The Crisis was resolved, for the time being.

Buchanan, a lame duck President, was responding to a new nullification crisis, which involved a matter not capable of compromise—the Election of a new President, Abraham Lincoln. Also, the times were different. The United States Army in 1860 numbered only 16,000 troops and it was spread from Maine to California. On the other hand, the Southern militia had grown much better organized, spurred by the talk of secession, Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. These militia units became the foundation of the Confederate Armies of Tennessee and Northern Virginia, which were very formidable forces.

So Buchanan confronted a much different crisis and a much different South. Moreover, had he engaged in sabre rattling in 1859-60 like Jackson, he risked a huge portion of his regular army, especially the officer corps which was top heavy with Southerners, who would have (and in fact later did) resigned rather than obey an order to invade the south.

Buchanan may not have been a great President, but he faced many crises including Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, Harper’s Ferry and the 1860 election. In my estimation, he was better than Grant, Wilson, Clinton, Carter, Obama, LBJ or FDR, to name a few. It is true that he was unable to avert the Civil War, but neither could Lincoln. Buchanan was a Constitutionalist, who believed the essence of governance was restraint. This is probably why liberals revile him.

I refuse to take the liberal bait on Buchanan, becasue it is highly simplistic to say any politician could have averted the Civil War. You have to look at the entire historical context. The seed of secession was planted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when the Convention deferred the issue of slavery in order to form a Union. It had been germinating for 80 years. The fact that it sprouted on James Buchanan’s watch is not even mostly his fault.


39 posted on 08/21/2010 9:21:11 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

“I refuse to take the liberal bait on Buchanan, becasue it is highly simplistic to say any politician could have averted the Civil War.”

Jefferson Davis might have desisted from attacking Fort Sumter. His own Secretary of State, Robert Toombs of Georgia, told him in plain English it would start the greatest civil war the world had ever seen, but Davis apparently thought he knew better.

It is disastrous decisions such as the Fort Sumter attack that lead me to think that one of the defects in our system of government is the unitary executive, and the Swiss plural executive may be superior. A unitary executive is certainly best if you know it will be George Washington or Ronald Reagan, but more often you get Jefferson Davis, Jimmy Carter, or Barack Obama.


40 posted on 08/21/2010 9:41:26 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; southernsunshine; Idabilly; central_va; mstar; Salamander; ...
Buchanan would not have needed to start a war. A threat, such as Andrew Jackson delivered, would have been enough to make the hotheads back down and more importantly it would have emboldened the more sensible Southerners to counsel against the madness. Once the insanity was loose and the rebs attacked, Lincoln had no choice but a resort to armed force.

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.."

41 posted on 08/21/2010 9:49:20 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: devere

“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.


42 posted on 08/21/2010 10:30:13 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
As I’ve said before, we cannot get rid of the $1 bill. What are we going to tip strippers with?

Get creative with that $1 coin...

43 posted on 08/21/2010 11:08:24 AM PDT by Moltke (panem et circenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

Beat me to it (see my #43) - GMTA...


44 posted on 08/21/2010 11:13:22 AM PDT by Moltke (panem et circenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
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.

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.

45 posted on 08/21/2010 11:26:01 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; cowboyway

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.


46 posted on 08/21/2010 11:27:21 AM PDT by B4Ranch (America was founded by MARKSMEN, not Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; southernsunshine; Idabilly; central_va; mstar; Salamander; ...
My opinion

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.

47 posted on 08/21/2010 11:52:15 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
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.

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.

48 posted on 08/21/2010 12:12:21 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan; Pharmboy

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Thanks Colonel Kangaroo..

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · Mirabilis.ca · LiveScience · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· 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 · ·


49 posted on 08/21/2010 12:21:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("The bad jazz a cat blows wails long after he's cut out." -- Lord Buckley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html

[Alabama] "...Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security... And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States, Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security." [Jan 11, 1861]

[Texas] "...The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression..." [Feb 1, 1861]

[Virginia] "...the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States..." [Feb 23, 1861]

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/index.html

[Arizona Territory] "...a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people... That we will not recognize the present Black Republican Administration, and that we will resist any officers appointed to this Territory by said Administration with whatever means in our power." [16 March 1861 -- Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1861. The pretext for Arizona's secession was interruption of U.S. postal service.]

50 posted on 08/21/2010 12:26:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("The bad jazz a cat blows wails long after he's cut out." -- Lord Buckley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,301-1,337 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson