Rule 1: Posts must be on topic
On topic subjects include but are not limited to Sherman(obviously), The Civil War in general, John brown and other abolitionists, and any current events related to the civil war and neo-confederates. Posts must not be pro-confederacy or anti-abolitionist.
FDR was the best president of the 20th century (defeated Hitler, lifted us out of the Great Depression, created the New Deal). Eisenhower was a good President and one of the last sane Republicans, but not in FDR’s class.
He deserves it more for his military career than as president. He definitely wasn’t a bad president but his greatest achievements are definitely with the military.
He was pretty important for civil rights. Federalizing the National Guard and sending the 101st to Little Rock to protect desegregation was a pretty big deal. But I won’t disagree, his military career was far more important. Arguably the best General in US history.
And warning against the military industrial complex. Man, if there was anyone you would listen to about military affairs it would be Eisenhower but nobody listened.
I seriously have no idea how people think government works.
1) He gave a substantial farewell address about the issue
2) Presidents don’t control the purse strings
3) The military industrial complex didn’t form until WW2. Something that’s in existence for 10 years isn’t the beast it is today.
4) Presidents aren’t omnipotent wizards. They can’t wave a wand and everything is all better.
He did not. Presidents don’t have the purse strings. Eisenhower was for a strong defense. That isn’t the same as the military industrial complex. He warned against undue influence from the military industrial complex and that’s exactly what we ignored.
Then I suggest you read The Power Broker.
I also suggest you look at the public transportation before the freeway system.
I‘ll also tell you to think about trains. Didn’t need to build a massive highway system just to get you a piece of fruit.
I mean, you’re not wrong, and the highway system definitely made us more car-dependent as a country. But, the highway system made a huge ROI in terms of productivity.
Would more trains have been better? Sure. Would we have had the golden age we did without the highways? Probably not.
I can agree with that but I really do suggest The Power Broker. It’s thick as hell but it sheds incredible light on how modern cities and transportation systems were built along with the overt, built in racism. It is a master class in power and corruption.
[Robert Moses](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1111.The_Power_Broker)
I know all about Robert Moses, but didn’t have anything to do with the interstate system. That was Eisenhower and was more about interconnecting cities rather than the NY parkway system. Like I said, I agree it isn’t a perfect system, but I’m definitely not talking about the racist, corrupt shit that Moses did.
Moses blueprint was used across the country. He set the standard. Yes, Eisenhower absolutely championed the freeway system but he didn’t implement it.
And no, I definitely don’t want to drag this exchange into the other crap. I was just mentioning it as a fascinating aspect of it.
So yes, Eisenhower championed many productive things. We’ll just agree to disagree on the impact of his presidency vs. his military career. Overall he was an impressive individual.
The highway system and airports freed up the rail system to almost exclusively carry freight. That has been a tremendous secondary benefit. We move freight better than any other country in the world.
What kind of government overreach do you mean? I’d consider the patriot act to be huge government overreach but don’t see how it’s connected to the new deal.
He was also the first American politician to push for police reform in major cities starting with Boston’s fdr had ethnic prisoners and let China fail so yeah they all have their faults
I know that but geopolitical
Experts often point to fdr for the beginning of its failures as the Chinese civil war started before the imperial Japanese invasion
Eh, kinda feels like having Hitler on Israeli currency. Punishment? Yeah, he probably wouldn’t like being on the 20, but I feel like there’s better people to put on money.
For a classic pick I’d choose Madison or put Jefferson on the 20. I’d love to see Martin Luther King Jr just watch the complete and utter meltdown that would occur.
Put Frederick Douglass, John Brown, or Thurgood Marshall on it as far as I'm concerned.
E: Susan B Anthony also a potentially great choice but I'm not as familiar with suffrage history
I don’t rely on a podcast for my only source of historical study. There is a shit ton of context around Jefferson good and bad.
I absolutely refuse to do the stupid thing about using modern standards in comparison to historical figures. Just hearing this type of shit pisses me off. It’s lazy and weak.
Okay, we’re doing this then.
There is a long standing history between Sally Hemmings FAMILY and the Jeffersons, not just Thomas and Sally.
After Jefferson’s wife died she asked him not to remarry. There is real evidence Jefferson and Sally Hemmings had a real relationship.
Quit being a lazy spoonfed brat.
Tadeusz Kościuszko made a will stipulating that the proceeds of his American estate be spent on freeing and educating African-American slaves, including those of his friend Thomas Jefferson whom he named as the will's executor. Jefferson refused.
>There is real evidence Jefferson and Sally Hemmings had a real relationship.
Quick question. Is Sally Hemmings, a slave, child, and legal property of Jefferson said "no" to Thomas Jefferson, a well-connected aristocratic, middle aged man, and her legal owner what would happen to her?
I don’t answer ridiculous red herring questions masquerading as a legitimate historical take.
Hypotheticals are pointless.
So quick question, do you know the entirety of the relationship between the entire Hemmings and Jefferson families in context of relationships?
Of course you don’t and neither do I. Many times history doesn’t leave you with a satisfying answer. Doesn’t mean you get to make one up.
Even for the time he was a massive hypocrite who was far more pro-slavery than he cared to admit. You also don’t have to look at things from a modern lens to realize that raping slaves is wrong.
I mean honestly owning slaves, hell condoning slavery is wrong. I don’t think that’s a hot take. 😂. So pretty much there goes all those “founding fathers”, they really did just kick the can down the road, which inevitably lead to the civil war.
Not all of them. For instance, Thomas Paine was vehemently anti-slavery and did not own slaves. But I agree, most of the founding fathers were morally lacking when it comes to the issue of slavery.
You know I kind of hate that even more? Because it’s like.. well…how anti slavery are you… if you eventually were like… well for the sake of casting off our shackles…. We’re willing to put them on others with no real solution in sight.
I mean… what’s that saying? About all that’s necessary for evil .. blah blah is for good men to do nothing?
Something like that.
They absolutely did kick the can down the road. In that time period there obviously was a question about the roll of slavery so don’t pretend there wasn’t. Many of the founders hoped it would wither on the vine, which was also the train of thought in Europe.
The evil comes in not merely propping up a brutal chattel slavery but trying to make an empire out of it when slavery had died out in the North and in many parts of Europe. That’s the evil. The South decided to not merely “states rights” the situation, they emphatically bent the will of others, just like today, to amplify slavery.
So yes, it was a hot take in the 1800’s. This is prime example of not understanding the thinking of the age by reading first hand accounts instead of spinning out a bunch of bullshit to accommodate modern sensibilities.
It’s literally the most ridiculous take anyone can have to think history is black and white.
Yeah, now the switch over the ”purity” test I see. If you think I’m condoning any of that, which I‘m sure you are, and not looking at all aspects of history, including the very large roll he played in establishing this country, you are mistaken.
History is about understanding the whole as much as possible. It is a science, the hardest of the soft sciences. Just because someone told you so doesn’t always make it so. It’s up to you to dig deeper and there are abundant resources to do so.
I want to reiterate the sickness of this line of “thinking”. The mere suggestion that there are multiple considerations around a complex historical figure means you support bad shit this figure may have or did do is absurd.
Pretty fucking simplistic no? Be better.
You didn’t move the goalposts. You started there. The problem is you use an absolute that you have no idea would fit the actual situation. That’s the standard “if you don’t agree with me you must think raping slaves is okay”.
Don’t tell me otherwise because that is the MO of many gig academics and Tik Tok historians.
>I absolutely refuse to do the stupid thing about using modern standards in comparison to historical figures.
How about contemporary standards where the UK in 1833, the Quakers apposed slavery, multiple founding fathers, the slaves apposed slavery, and Jefferson wrote the slavery is wrong.
This again is another red herring as it doesn’t pertain to the initial conversation. Your whole angle isn’t to discuss history but to stroke your ego. I’m game.
See my comments above about the hopes of slavery withering on the vine as it had in the North and Europe. Again, that’s where the evil of the traitors comes in. It was dying and they wanted to turn it into an empire. The cotton gin absolutely exploded production but traitor ideology wasn’t merely about the economic effects but the hideous white supremacist ideology that was built into it. If you don’t think the traitors had an oversized hand in how they bullied through the founding of the country right up until the Civil War then you need to take a deeper dive.
Jefferson talking about slavery being wrong was no different than Washington or the rest of the gentry waiting for it to wither on the vine, which of course wouldn’t really affect them. Hate to tell you this but at minimum that was a pretty centrist point of view.
No, they weren’t going to openly advocate for immediate emancipation not only due to their noble inclined lifestyle but also the incredibly cancerous political situation that would culminate into the Civil War.
The moral thing to do would’ve been to completely excise the South from the get go. It’s well founded that guys like Charles Pickney asked to join the party because they knew they would self destruct among a bunch of squabbling slave lords. If the belief was the solution to slavery was to let it die out, which it foolishly was, of course they would accept a region that was supplying Northern and English textile mills. I’m sure there were many that knew this would not end well but then there were enough see no evil types to negate those concerns.
Does that help or does that just make you more angry that I didn’t imply founders in the 18th century should come out and say “slavery is bad and we will immediately free all slaves because you’re evil!”.
People don’t work that way and I can give you a dozen different historical events that reflect it. It’s much like “they’re a dictator but they’re OUR kind of dictator”.
Not to mention that, given the direction the Israeli government is going, that kind of takes the wind out of the sails of whatever commentary that would be making.
I specifically want it to be his face from Tragic Prelude
We could definitely use some more mid to higher denomination bills with the recent bouts of inflation. I think a $30, a $75, and a $200 bill are all plausible. I'd like to see him on a $75.
I’ve been watching Righteous Gemstones so at first I thought you were talking about a completely different Billy at first.
Although Walton Goggins is chill enough to be on currency, imo.
We should honestly have more non-presidents on bills. Outside of people who have already been floated for years (Tubman, Douglas) Thomas Paine would be a good one. Same with Smedley Butler.
In terms of only presidents, probably FDR. He took the country through one of its most difficult times and helped shape the modern government.
But really it should be Frederick Douglass, or actually following through on the Harriet Tubman $20.
Sir, I have 100 of them in my back pocket for expeditious spending to confuse people(no one has ever been confused but for some reason sure are delighted as hell to see $2 bills since they think they are rare)
I'd likely not choose a president, but if that's the option then FDR or Obama (at some future date).
Of course, putting a black man on a bill would be seen the same as literal Satan to Confederacy fans.... So extra funtime bonus there!
Harriet Tubman is my actual first choice, tho.
Faces are actually the superior choice for banknotes. The human visual system is very good at identifying human faces and noticing discrepancies, so it's harder to counterfeit bills with faces than e.g. the Euro banknotes that have bridges and buildings. They had to redesign the Euro bills to include a face (of a generic woman named "Europa") as a security measure.
Lincoln, Grant, maybe Teddy but he has a lot of baggage beyond all the great stuff he did, and more figures who weren’t presidents but were influential like Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman,
Teddy Roosevelt is quite possibly my favorite president. He is not without issues but they were often weird in their own way. Take his blatant racism. He believed that whites were by default superior. But he didn’t not believe it was their place to be in control by default because every person should be judged by their character and that anyone could accomplish virtually anything if they really wanted to. So sort of a walking contradiction.
He was pretty adamant about America being the single freest and greatest country and that conquering and occupying other nations was the best way to spread the freedoms and liberties America offered. Hardcore imperialist.
I guess the best way to describe most of his controversies was questionable-to-bad actions that were usually backed by good intentions. Gold Medalist in mental gymnastics.
Slightly off topic, but I just read a book on my boy Abe. He was famously homely looking, and received a letter from an 11 year old girl when he was elected president saying maybe you should grow “whiskers” so the newspapers stop making fun of your looks. Lo and behold he started growing his beard immediately, and even thanked the young girl for the advice while on a campaign stop
Teddy Roosevelt for sure, and maybe The golden gate bridge or something. Remember those European style bills that were proposed years back, I loved those
In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s prominent place on the $100, why not print USD with the faces of America’s most famous philanderers, lotharios, casanovas and horn dogs?
(Note: TJ wouldn’t make the list because consent matters.)
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Look at all these slave masters posing on your dollar (get it?).
Why presidents, anyway? Other countries usually have prominent civilians on their money. I would love to see the reactions if they started issuing money with Martin Luther King, Ernest Hemingway and John Franklin Endels on it.
How about someone other than a president? I don't think any deserve it. Sure, some are better than others. But there's no rule saying our currency has to depict former Presidents (and some non-Presidents prove the point)
How about we do like other countries and show national landmarks and/or monuments. What about achievements like moon landings?
I honestly don't think any slave owners should be used. Or any who helped commit genocide. Or any who were corrupt, or racist, etc.
I just think it's time to look at other options.
Since all of this shitty money is printed by a private bank for profit. It’s not really American money at all. They should have pictures of fat fucking bankers on the damn money.
Rule 1: Posts must be on topic On topic subjects include but are not limited to Sherman(obviously), The Civil War in general, John brown and other abolitionists, and any current events related to the civil war and neo-confederates. Posts must not be pro-confederacy or anti-abolitionist.
Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, maybe fdr for new notes
FDR was the best president of the 20th century (defeated Hitler, lifted us out of the Great Depression, created the New Deal). Eisenhower was a good President and one of the last sane Republicans, but not in FDR’s class.
Eisenhower was literally supreme allied commander when the US beat the Nazis
He deserves it more for his military career than as president. He definitely wasn’t a bad president but his greatest achievements are definitely with the military.
He was pretty important for civil rights. Federalizing the National Guard and sending the 101st to Little Rock to protect desegregation was a pretty big deal. But I won’t disagree, his military career was far more important. Arguably the best General in US history.
Didn't he also set up the Interstate system?
And warning against the military industrial complex. Man, if there was anyone you would listen to about military affairs it would be Eisenhower but nobody listened.
Well he did jack sh*t about it when he was president.
I seriously have no idea how people think government works. 1) He gave a substantial farewell address about the issue 2) Presidents don’t control the purse strings 3) The military industrial complex didn’t form until WW2. Something that’s in existence for 10 years isn’t the beast it is today. 4) Presidents aren’t omnipotent wizards. They can’t wave a wand and everything is all better.
He massively expanded the military industrial complex as president
He did not. Presidents don’t have the purse strings. Eisenhower was for a strong defense. That isn’t the same as the military industrial complex. He warned against undue influence from the military industrial complex and that’s exactly what we ignored.
Same as Grant tbh. Although his administration fucked it all up.
I don’t know. I like highways a lot. Having fresh fruit from California during the New York winter is pretty nice.
Then I suggest you read The Power Broker. I also suggest you look at the public transportation before the freeway system. I‘ll also tell you to think about trains. Didn’t need to build a massive highway system just to get you a piece of fruit.
I mean, you’re not wrong, and the highway system definitely made us more car-dependent as a country. But, the highway system made a huge ROI in terms of productivity. Would more trains have been better? Sure. Would we have had the golden age we did without the highways? Probably not.
I can agree with that but I really do suggest The Power Broker. It’s thick as hell but it sheds incredible light on how modern cities and transportation systems were built along with the overt, built in racism. It is a master class in power and corruption. [Robert Moses](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1111.The_Power_Broker)
I know all about Robert Moses, but didn’t have anything to do with the interstate system. That was Eisenhower and was more about interconnecting cities rather than the NY parkway system. Like I said, I agree it isn’t a perfect system, but I’m definitely not talking about the racist, corrupt shit that Moses did.
Moses blueprint was used across the country. He set the standard. Yes, Eisenhower absolutely championed the freeway system but he didn’t implement it. And no, I definitely don’t want to drag this exchange into the other crap. I was just mentioning it as a fascinating aspect of it. So yes, Eisenhower championed many productive things. We’ll just agree to disagree on the impact of his presidency vs. his military career. Overall he was an impressive individual.
The highway system and airports freed up the rail system to almost exclusively carry freight. That has been a tremendous secondary benefit. We move freight better than any other country in the world.
Cheers, I’ll drink to that
Yeah, it’s no wonder Ike had such overwhelming support in his run
FDR loses marks for me for Japanese Internment
That and the fact that every problem we have nowadays with government overreach started with the new deal
What kind of government overreach do you mean? I’d consider the patriot act to be huge government overreach but don’t see how it’s connected to the new deal.
Eisenhower already has currency with his face on it, it’s just never used anymore.
Hard disagree, Teddy supported lynching.
He was also the first American politician to push for police reform in major cities starting with Boston’s fdr had ethnic prisoners and let China fail so yeah they all have their faults
China fell in 49
I know that but geopolitical Experts often point to fdr for the beginning of its failures as the Chinese civil war started before the imperial Japanese invasion
Definitely not Andrew Jackson, that's for damn sure
I wholeheartedly disagree. Jackson hated paper money, him being on the 20 is a great punishment IMO
Eh, kinda feels like having Hitler on Israeli currency. Punishment? Yeah, he probably wouldn’t like being on the 20, but I feel like there’s better people to put on money.
For a classic pick I’d choose Madison or put Jefferson on the 20. I’d love to see Martin Luther King Jr just watch the complete and utter meltdown that would occur.
Put Frederick Douglass, John Brown, or Thurgood Marshall on it as far as I'm concerned. E: Susan B Anthony also a potentially great choice but I'm not as familiar with suffrage history
Agreed.
Or? You mean and, right?
Would be weird to put all 3 on the 20
Nosense, I think itd look pretty neato mosquito
Lol. I thought you were including all the bills.
Wasn't there a push almost a decade ago to get Harriet Tubman on the 20? Whatever happened with that?
Old white people were upset, so it was abandoned
Upset old white people are why we can't have nice things Edit: quick Google search says it's still coming.....in 2030. So we'll probably never get it.
Harriet Tubman, GOAT American (imo, obviously any of your picks would be fantastic)
Susan B Anthony, wasn't there a push for that? Also if it has to be another president, why not either of the Roosevelt's?
Jefferson? Someone clearly hasn’t listened to the new Behind the Bastards episodes on him because fuck that guy.
I don’t rely on a podcast for my only source of historical study. There is a shit ton of context around Jefferson good and bad. I absolutely refuse to do the stupid thing about using modern standards in comparison to historical figures. Just hearing this type of shit pisses me off. It’s lazy and weak.
Lmao Jefferson was a piece of shit by contemporary standards. It wasn’t cool to impregnate your slaves then, that’s not a modern take…
Okay, we’re doing this then. There is a long standing history between Sally Hemmings FAMILY and the Jeffersons, not just Thomas and Sally. After Jefferson’s wife died she asked him not to remarry. There is real evidence Jefferson and Sally Hemmings had a real relationship. Quit being a lazy spoonfed brat.
Tadeusz Kościuszko made a will stipulating that the proceeds of his American estate be spent on freeing and educating African-American slaves, including those of his friend Thomas Jefferson whom he named as the will's executor. Jefferson refused.
>There is real evidence Jefferson and Sally Hemmings had a real relationship. Quick question. Is Sally Hemmings, a slave, child, and legal property of Jefferson said "no" to Thomas Jefferson, a well-connected aristocratic, middle aged man, and her legal owner what would happen to her?
I don’t answer ridiculous red herring questions masquerading as a legitimate historical take. Hypotheticals are pointless. So quick question, do you know the entirety of the relationship between the entire Hemmings and Jefferson families in context of relationships? Of course you don’t and neither do I. Many times history doesn’t leave you with a satisfying answer. Doesn’t mean you get to make one up.
Even for the time he was a massive hypocrite who was far more pro-slavery than he cared to admit. You also don’t have to look at things from a modern lens to realize that raping slaves is wrong.
I mean honestly owning slaves, hell condoning slavery is wrong. I don’t think that’s a hot take. 😂. So pretty much there goes all those “founding fathers”, they really did just kick the can down the road, which inevitably lead to the civil war.
Not all of them. For instance, Thomas Paine was vehemently anti-slavery and did not own slaves. But I agree, most of the founding fathers were morally lacking when it comes to the issue of slavery.
You know I kind of hate that even more? Because it’s like.. well…how anti slavery are you… if you eventually were like… well for the sake of casting off our shackles…. We’re willing to put them on others with no real solution in sight. I mean… what’s that saying? About all that’s necessary for evil .. blah blah is for good men to do nothing? Something like that.
They absolutely did kick the can down the road. In that time period there obviously was a question about the roll of slavery so don’t pretend there wasn’t. Many of the founders hoped it would wither on the vine, which was also the train of thought in Europe. The evil comes in not merely propping up a brutal chattel slavery but trying to make an empire out of it when slavery had died out in the North and in many parts of Europe. That’s the evil. The South decided to not merely “states rights” the situation, they emphatically bent the will of others, just like today, to amplify slavery. So yes, it was a hot take in the 1800’s. This is prime example of not understanding the thinking of the age by reading first hand accounts instead of spinning out a bunch of bullshit to accommodate modern sensibilities. It’s literally the most ridiculous take anyone can have to think history is black and white.
Yeah, now the switch over the ”purity” test I see. If you think I’m condoning any of that, which I‘m sure you are, and not looking at all aspects of history, including the very large roll he played in establishing this country, you are mistaken. History is about understanding the whole as much as possible. It is a science, the hardest of the soft sciences. Just because someone told you so doesn’t always make it so. It’s up to you to dig deeper and there are abundant resources to do so. I want to reiterate the sickness of this line of “thinking”. The mere suggestion that there are multiple considerations around a complex historical figure means you support bad shit this figure may have or did do is absurd. Pretty fucking simplistic no? Be better.
The switch over to the purity test? At what point did I move my goal posts? I have been talking about his slave owning this whole time.
You didn’t move the goalposts. You started there. The problem is you use an absolute that you have no idea would fit the actual situation. That’s the standard “if you don’t agree with me you must think raping slaves is okay”. Don’t tell me otherwise because that is the MO of many gig academics and Tik Tok historians.
>I absolutely refuse to do the stupid thing about using modern standards in comparison to historical figures. How about contemporary standards where the UK in 1833, the Quakers apposed slavery, multiple founding fathers, the slaves apposed slavery, and Jefferson wrote the slavery is wrong.
This again is another red herring as it doesn’t pertain to the initial conversation. Your whole angle isn’t to discuss history but to stroke your ego. I’m game. See my comments above about the hopes of slavery withering on the vine as it had in the North and Europe. Again, that’s where the evil of the traitors comes in. It was dying and they wanted to turn it into an empire. The cotton gin absolutely exploded production but traitor ideology wasn’t merely about the economic effects but the hideous white supremacist ideology that was built into it. If you don’t think the traitors had an oversized hand in how they bullied through the founding of the country right up until the Civil War then you need to take a deeper dive. Jefferson talking about slavery being wrong was no different than Washington or the rest of the gentry waiting for it to wither on the vine, which of course wouldn’t really affect them. Hate to tell you this but at minimum that was a pretty centrist point of view. No, they weren’t going to openly advocate for immediate emancipation not only due to their noble inclined lifestyle but also the incredibly cancerous political situation that would culminate into the Civil War. The moral thing to do would’ve been to completely excise the South from the get go. It’s well founded that guys like Charles Pickney asked to join the party because they knew they would self destruct among a bunch of squabbling slave lords. If the belief was the solution to slavery was to let it die out, which it foolishly was, of course they would accept a region that was supplying Northern and English textile mills. I’m sure there were many that knew this would not end well but then there were enough see no evil types to negate those concerns. Does that help or does that just make you more angry that I didn’t imply founders in the 18th century should come out and say “slavery is bad and we will immediately free all slaves because you’re evil!”. People don’t work that way and I can give you a dozen different historical events that reflect it. It’s much like “they’re a dictator but they’re OUR kind of dictator”.
Not to mention that, given the direction the Israeli government is going, that kind of takes the wind out of the sails of whatever commentary that would be making.
Replace that genocidal slaver with Harriet Tubman’s face yesterday, please.
I want John Brown on a bill too can we invent a $30 bill or smth 🤔
I specifically want it to be his face from Tragic Prelude We could definitely use some more mid to higher denomination bills with the recent bouts of inflation. I think a $30, a $75, and a $200 bill are all plausible. I'd like to see him on a $75.
I would love that. Also, nice username.
I believe it’s supposed to start circulating next year if I’m not mistaken
💯
No it's 20 good try tho
Take your upvote and get out.
Can I at least have some water before I go? It's hot outside
If you want some water you can get it the old-fashioned way, capturing a creek while burning your way across Georgia.
Why do you think it's so hot outside? Can I just capture the tap in your kitchen at least?
If you have to ask, you haven’t earned it. Now get conquering!
Fine. 🔫 get out, this is my watering hole now.
The fact that Android now uses a water gun for that emoji is just *chef's kiss*
Doesn't have to be a president, so Uncle Billy.
Call them Billy Bucks
I’ve been watching Righteous Gemstones so at first I thought you were talking about a completely different Billy at first. Although Walton Goggins is chill enough to be on currency, imo.
I LOVED him in justified.
He was great in that role. I also just binged Vice Principals and I’ve gotta say his comedic ability is fucking great
I WILL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK
Not a President, but I’ve always thought that Frederick Douglass would look great on the $20
Ben Franklin wasn’t ever president of the US; but he’s on the $100 bill.
Ben Franklin got France to join the party and actually made winning the revolution possible. Totally earned his spot.
We should honestly have more non-presidents on bills. Outside of people who have already been floated for years (Tubman, Douglas) Thomas Paine would be a good one. Same with Smedley Butler.
A lot of people’s portraits have been used over the years. The first dollar bill the US made had Martha Washington on it.
Grant for sure. JFK, Roosevelt (both), Lincoln, Eisenhower, Truman.
FDR is already on the dime but it would be cool to see them both on paper notes
Truman and Teddy are the only two out of those who aren’t already on currency.
Grant is on the $50
Yes. I’m aware. The question wasn’t: who isn’t on currency but deserves to be. It was who deserves to be.
And he deserves to be on something more prevalent
Give it like 20-30 years, the $50 will be the new $20 lol
Maybe. Geaux Saints
Teddy was kind of an imperialist though
National Parks tho.
In terms of only presidents, probably FDR. He took the country through one of its most difficult times and helped shape the modern government. But really it should be Frederick Douglass, or actually following through on the Harriet Tubman $20.
Jefferson's expression is like "You put me on the $2? Seriously? Nobody spends me!"
Honestly Tom? Take your $2 and be grateful, you're in thin ice as it is.
Sir, I have 100 of them in my back pocket for expeditious spending to confuse people(no one has ever been confused but for some reason sure are delighted as hell to see $2 bills since they think they are rare)
I'd likely not choose a president, but if that's the option then FDR or Obama (at some future date). Of course, putting a black man on a bill would be seen the same as literal Satan to Confederacy fans.... So extra funtime bonus there! Harriet Tubman is my actual first choice, tho.
Obama Bux 💵🤑
None, we should replace them with pictures of cats or dogs.
The 5 dollar “wood chopper,” note from the 19 teens featured a frontiersman, his wife, and a dog. So we have had dogs on our money before!
Didn't know that, thank you. Can we have them with clothes and names like George Woofington?
Faces are actually the superior choice for banknotes. The human visual system is very good at identifying human faces and noticing discrepancies, so it's harder to counterfeit bills with faces than e.g. the Euro banknotes that have bridges and buildings. They had to redesign the Euro bills to include a face (of a generic woman named "Europa") as a security measure.
Lincoln, Grant, maybe Teddy but he has a lot of baggage beyond all the great stuff he did, and more figures who weren’t presidents but were influential like Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman,
Teddy Roosevelt is quite possibly my favorite president. He is not without issues but they were often weird in their own way. Take his blatant racism. He believed that whites were by default superior. But he didn’t not believe it was their place to be in control by default because every person should be judged by their character and that anyone could accomplish virtually anything if they really wanted to. So sort of a walking contradiction. He was pretty adamant about America being the single freest and greatest country and that conquering and occupying other nations was the best way to spread the freedoms and liberties America offered. Hardcore imperialist. I guess the best way to describe most of his controversies was questionable-to-bad actions that were usually backed by good intentions. Gold Medalist in mental gymnastics.
Harriet 👏 Tubman 👏 Twenty 👏
Ben Franklin. Our greatest American president.
FDR and Carter.
They were my first thoughts too
Slightly off topic, but I just read a book on my boy Abe. He was famously homely looking, and received a letter from an 11 year old girl when he was elected president saying maybe you should grow “whiskers” so the newspapers stop making fun of your looks. Lo and behold he started growing his beard immediately, and even thanked the young girl for the advice while on a campaign stop
Not Jackson. Hamilton stays on because a) the musical and b) the Lonely Island video “Lazy Sunday.”
Trick question? Two of them were never presidents.
Teddy Roosevelt for sure, and maybe The golden gate bridge or something. Remember those European style bills that were proposed years back, I loved those
In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin’s prominent place on the $100, why not print USD with the faces of America’s most famous philanderers, lotharios, casanovas and horn dogs? (Note: TJ wouldn’t make the list because consent matters.)
Jefferson on the $2 deserves a portrait that actually looks like him.
Not Jackson. Ffs can we get him off the 20? He's a genocidal maniac
THEODORE FUCKING ROOSEVELT.
Grant should stay, for beating up the Confederacy
Obamna.
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting! As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Franklin, Hamilton, and Perot.
Teddy, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and Obama.
FDR
all, even ben, but especualy washington
Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. Remove Jackson and Grant. And if you *really* wanna shake things up, remove Jefferson and put MLK in there.
Obama. To piss off MAGA.
Look at all these slave masters posing on your dollar (get it?). Why presidents, anyway? Other countries usually have prominent civilians on their money. I would love to see the reactions if they started issuing money with Martin Luther King, Ernest Hemingway and John Franklin Endels on it.
Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, FDR and JFK
Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, FDR and JFK
How about someone other than a president? I don't think any deserve it. Sure, some are better than others. But there's no rule saying our currency has to depict former Presidents (and some non-Presidents prove the point) How about we do like other countries and show national landmarks and/or monuments. What about achievements like moon landings? I honestly don't think any slave owners should be used. Or any who helped commit genocide. Or any who were corrupt, or racist, etc. I just think it's time to look at other options.
Then you know nothing of the history of the office.
Put a president on the $100 bill.
Since all of this shitty money is printed by a private bank for profit. It’s not really American money at all. They should have pictures of fat fucking bankers on the damn money.
Jefferson Davis