Hamilton Wins, Jackson Loses

[Ibanez]

No, I get. There were many that recognized it as a necessary evil as well.



I just find the uproar silly. I mean, give me 1 influential figure in Americas past that has zero bàggage. Washington, Jefferson and Jackson owned slaves. Lincoln suffered from mental illness. Grant was an alcoholic. Franklin was a whore who also was a slave owner...but changed his position on slavery. FDR was an adulterer. Truman

I can't think of anything against Chase or Hamilton. But I'm sure they did or said something naughty.

I'm agree that slavery was evil but no one is perfect. Not even H. Tubman. She'd be crucified by the press today as an evangelical.

In fact, I bet all those people on our money would despise gays.

So hey, let's put Hitler on our money - I am sure he did something good, at least once.


Jackson - he hated everyone. It wasn't until the Evangelical furor of the 1820's, where Christian offshoots like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc were founded, and concepts like the Rapture were invented that America turned more Puritanical.

Baron von Steuben was an indispensable ally and advisor to George Washington, and openly gay. So let's not make too many ASSumptions

Baron von Steuben was also a fraud...however it turned out well for us.

It's pointless talking to you. That isn't what I'm saying at all. Hitler? Seriously? Hitler did do some good (we stole Social Security and the Interstate system from him), we may not like it, but he did do some good - right before he went bat shit crazy. We're taking people off of money because they don't make us feel warm inside. I'm saying, you're going to have a difficult time trying to find someone that doesn't offend our over sensitive, PC population. Might as well just have question marks in place of the portraits. Hell, give PETA the chance to find something endangered Mid-Atlantic squirrel that had its habitat ruined at Yorktown and we'll see them demand Washington's face and name be erased.


And sure, nit pick some gays to supplement your point.

Why not put Buchanan on a bill? He was gay. But, he was also a pathetic administrator and did nothing to stop the South from seceding.

Why can't we accept these men (and our country for that matter) for the faults as well as their strengths?

[dbackjon]

So hey, let's put Hitler on our money - I am sure he did something good, at least once.


Jackson - he hated everyone. It wasn't until the Evangelical furor of the 1820's, where Christian offshoots like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc were founded, and concepts like the Rapture were invented that America turned more Puritanical.

Baron von Steuben was an indispensable ally and advisor to George Washington, and openly gay. So let's not make too many ASSumptions

Baron von Steuben was also a fraud...however it turned out well for us.

It's pointless talking to you. That isn't what I'm saying at all. Hitler? Seriously? Hitler did do some good (we stole Social Security and the Interstate system from him), we may not like it, but he did do some good - right before he went bat shit crazy. We're taking people off of money because they don't make us feel warm inside. I'm saying, you're going to have a difficult time trying to find someone that doesn't offend our over sensitive, PC population. Might as well just have question marks in place of the portraits. Hell, give PETA the chance to find something endangered Mid-Atlantic squirrel that had its habitat ruined at Yorktown and we'll see them demand Washington's face and name be erased.


And sure, nit pick some gays to supplement your point.

Why not put Buchanan on a bill? He was gay. But, he was also a pathetic administrator and did nothing to stop the South from seceding.

Why can't we accept these men (and our country for that matter) for the faults as well as their strengths?

It is pointless to talk to you, since you ignore well documented posts that disprove much of what you post.


Good day, Sir!



I said Good Day

[Ibanez]

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

Certainly side a little bit with dback on this one. Sure, plenty of those people owned slaves, but there wasn't a monolithic attitude toward slavery even then, i.e. not looking at it from our vantage point in time. Washington, even as a slave holder himself, had plenty of documented concerns about slavery, both personally and for the country, and even went as far as he legally could in terms of setting his own slaves free, unique among the slave-holding Founding Fathers. Jackson came a generation later and there was no evidence really of him being at odds with slavery, even at a later time than Washington. So no, not all slave holders were created equal apparently.

Don't get me wrong, I get and to a point agree with dback. I'm just saying, history isn't pretty.

[Ibanez]

Baron von Steuben was also a fraud...however it turned out well for us.

It's pointless talking to you. That isn't what I'm saying at all. Hitler? Seriously? Hitler did do some good (we stole Social Security and the Interstate system from him), we may not like it, but he did do some good - right before he went bat shit crazy. We're taking people off of money because they don't make us feel warm inside. I'm saying, you're going to have a difficult time trying to find someone that doesn't offend our over sensitive, PC population. Might as well just have question marks in place of the portraits. Hell, give PETA the chance to find something endangered Mid-Atlantic squirrel that had its habitat ruined at Yorktown and we'll see them demand Washington's face and name be erased.


And sure, nit pick some gays to supplement your point.

Why not put Buchanan on a bill? He was gay. But, he was also a pathetic administrator and did nothing to stop the South from seceding.

Why can't we accept these men (and our country for that matter) for the faults as well as their strengths?

It is pointless to talk to you, since you ignore well documented posts that disprove much of what you post.


Good day, Sir!



I said Good Day

Nothing I have said has been disproven. Imperfect men adorn our money. Some we respect and value more than others.


It seems there's a certain degree of evilness that we approve/ignore.

[Ibanez]

Any news on Truman being removed? He displaced more Japanese citizens than Jackson did Injins.

[Ibanez]

I'd actually would be ok with amending how we celebrate Columbus Day. It's no secret that he didn't discover America. The Irish and Norse, for two groups, beat him here.

[dbackjon]

I'd actually would be ok with amending how we celebrate Columbus Day. It's no secret that he didn't discover America. The Irish and Norse, for two groups, beat him here.

Link on the Irish?

[Ibanez]

I'd actually would be ok with amending how we celebrate Columbus Day. It's no secret that he didn't discover America. The Irish and Norse, for two groups, beat him here.

Link on the Irish?

I don't know if there are hard facts, but look up St. Brendan.

And there is 1, possibility 2 Viking settlements in Canada.

[SDHornet]

I'd actually would be ok with amending how we celebrate Columbus Day. It's no secret that he didn't discover America. The Irish and Norse, for two groups, beat him here.

Link on the Irish?

They were probably drunk and didn't realize where they were so stumbled back to Irishland before anything could be documented.

[Grizalltheway]

Link on the Irish?

I don't know if there are hard facts, but look up St. Brendan.

And there is 1, possibility 2 Viking settlements in Canada.

The NOVA special on those was pretty neat.

[Ibanez]

I don't know if there are hard facts, but look up St. Brendan.

And there is 1, possibility 2 Viking settlements in Canada.

The NOVA special on those was pretty neat.

Space archeologists, yes that's a real job, think they have identified another settlement. It was in the NYT a few weeks ago.

[dbackjon]

Link on the Irish?

I don't know if there are hard facts, but look up St. Brendan.

And there is 1, possibility 2 Viking settlements in Canada.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence St. Brendan reached America.


I didn't question the Vikings

[Ibanez]

I don't know if there are hard facts, but look up St. Brendan.

And there is 1, possibility 2 Viking settlements in Canada.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence St. Brendan reached America.


I didn't question the Vikings

Yeah, I thought I saw some research a while ago about the Irish. I knew the legend but thought someone had found proof. I know there's a 16th century Spanish report that eludes to the Irish being in Carolina or Georgia but the details elude me at the moment and I'm not gonna look it up.

Plus, I have no problem saying I was mistaken.

[kalm]

But not as wealthy as Jefferson or Washington.


So what's your point? You really got to get over the slave labor fact. It happened. They were products of their environments/times.

I don't think it's fair to judge them using our morals. We have to understand the era in which they lived and how they conducted themselves overall. Being slaveowners shouldn't be the only aspect by which they should be measured.

I'd bet they would look down on us with disgust with their 18th Century ideals and morals.

Nope, it's a classic democrat move: put historical figures up against todays puritanical values system, and then crucify them for their failures.

See: Columbus, Christopher;

Didn't what we know about CC come from a priest traveling with him that was shocked by his actions. Sounds like he was ahead of the cruelty curve and was also a shitty navigator but yeah...go ahead and blame the Dems...shocker!

[UNI88]

I kind of like the choice. Tubman was a remarkable woman who definitely contributed to the history and character of our country. I do believe that Jackson's contributions outweighed Grant's though.

[CID1990]

I think we should continue to navel-gaze over how long dead statesmen matter one whit, really.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think we should continue to navel-gaze over how long dead statesmen matter one whit, really.

Pretty ironic coming from a proud Southerner.

I don't think any region in the country idolizes their long dead statesmen with the same navel-gazing zeal as the South.

And, aren't you obsessed with your Scots-Irish heritage? Don't you dress up in a kilt to celebrate your heritage?

[Ibanez]

I think we should continue to navel-gaze over how long dead statesmen matter one whit, really.

Pretty ironic coming from a proud Southerner.

I don't think any region in the country idolizes their long dead statesmen with the same navel-gazing zeal as the South.

And, aren't you obsessed with your Scots-Irish heritage? Don't you dress up in a kilt to celebrate your heritage?

Lulz.

I have never lived in other regions of the country so I don't know about your first question.


CID, I ran into some of your kin a few weeks ago.

[CID1990]

I think we should continue to navel-gaze over how long dead statesmen matter one whit, really.

Pretty ironic coming from a proud Southerner.

I don't think any region in the country idolizes their long dead statesmen with the same navel-gazing zeal as the South.

And, aren't you obsessed with your Scots-Irish heritage? Don't you dress up in a kilt to celebrate your heritage?

That isn't what navel-gazing means, knucklehead.

99% non-sequitur, as usual.

[CID1990]

Pretty ironic coming from a proud Southerner.

I don't think any region in the country idolizes their long dead statesmen with the same navel-gazing zeal as the South.

And, aren't you obsessed with your Scots-Irish heritage? Don't you dress up in a kilt to celebrate your heritage?

Lulz.

I have never lived in other regions of the country so I don't know about your first question.


CID, I ran into some of your kin a few weeks ago.

There they are...

The stories of the exalted Clan Gunn get better every time they tell them

Starling Gunn was an artilleryman and witnessed the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. He was later at the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, personally killed Tecumseh, and eventually wound up as a personal secretary to both Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman.

[Ibanez]

Lulz.

I have never lived in other regions of the country so I don't know about your first question.


CID, I ran into some of your kin a few weeks ago.

There they are...

The stories of the exalted Clan Gunn get better every time they tell them

Starling Gunn was an artilleryman and witnessed the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. He was later at the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, personally killed Tecumseh, and eventually wound up as a personal secretary to both Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman.

erroneous history aside,
Do you have something against celebrating ones heritage?

[CID1990]

There they are...

The stories of the exalted Clan Gunn get better every time they tell them

Starling Gunn was an artilleryman and witnessed the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. He was later at the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, personally killed Tecumseh, and eventually wound up as a personal secretary to both Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman.

erroneous history aside,
Do you have something against celebrating ones heritage?

Absolutely not!

It just drives me crazy when people (especially my own) "fabulate" it.

That's also quite different from viewing people of the past through the prism of today and making judgments or even critiques of ourselves based on them (sometimes referred to as navel gazing). Even if we judge them to be DE DEBBIL

it matters not one bit for anything

[Ibanez]

erroneous history aside,
Do you have something against celebrating ones heritage?

Absolutely not!

It just drives me crazy when people (especially my own) "fabulate" it.

That's also quite different from viewing people of the past through the prism of today and making judgments or even critiques of ourselves based on them (sometimes referred to as navel gazing). Even if we judge them to be DE DEBBIL

it matters not one bit for anything

Yeah, I agree. My aunts all claim that we descend from Queen Josephine even though there's no evidence. It drives me crazy because I've done the research and there isn't a link.

[Ivytalk]

Absolutely not!

It just drives me crazy when people (especially my own) "fabulate" it.

That's also quite different from viewing people of the past through the prism of today and making judgments or even critiques of ourselves based on them (sometimes referred to as navel gazing). Even if we judge them to be DE DEBBIL

it matters not one bit for anything

Yeah, I agree. My aunts all claim that we descend from Queen Josephine even though there's no evidence. It drives me crazy because I've done the research and there isn't a link.

You haven't looked closely enough. Queen Josephine was wild about bow ties.

[Ibanez]

Yeah, I agree. My aunts all claim that we descend from Queen Josephine even though there's no evidence. It drives me crazy because I've done the research and there isn't a link.

You haven't looked closely enough. Queen Josephine was wild about bow ties.

You may be on to something.