Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Pwns wrote:Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote: He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

Ibanez wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

I know. I just like feeding the trolls.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote: He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

Did we not have a right to leave? Or was our relocation here set in stone as the Union was.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote: He also wanted blacks to leave the country altogether....but that's beside the point. Right?

He wanted them to have the option to leave the country. What's wrong with that?

He wasn't going to force them to leave (ala Andrew Jackson).

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... entral-am/

OL FU wrote:They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

Ivytalk wrote:

OL FU wrote:They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

But keep Ben Franklin on the $100 bill. Cool guy. Renaissance man who invented a lot of stuff.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:Glad that no woman will be going on the front of any bill. All of the women that have been suggested are at best tertiary figures of US history and the idea that lowering the bar for women to be on the bill thinking it will make girls more interested in math or computer coding is just naive and stupid.

I would be fine with Martin Luther King Jr on a bill BTW...let's replace Abraham Lincoln with him since MLK was about non-violence and Lincoln caused a 5-year that killed hundreds of thousands.

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

Ivytalk wrote:

OL FU wrote:They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

But keep Ben Franklin on the $100 bill. Cool guy. Renaissance man who invented a lot of stuff.

∞∞∞ wrote:I'm just curious, but how often do you guys still use paper money or coins? Personally, I can't even remember the last time I touched a bill.

∞∞∞ wrote:I'm just curious, but how often do you guys still use paper money or coins? Personally, I can't even remember the last time I touched a bill.