Any interest in a Civil War Generals Set?

Bodie

With all the coins the (Franklin) U.S. Mint is creating, how about a Silver dolllar Series of Civil Wars Generals. North and South. The Mint can produce pehaps 5 from each. Make the cases blue and gray.

Or perhaps people only know them from TV shows like Dukes of Hazzard(General Lee).

Ken Burns would be proud.

ziggy29

I think that would be cooler than presidents and first ladies. But I suspect it would be too politically incorrect to commemorate the Confederates.

410a

What?? No Bobby Lee? No Jeff Davis?? No J P Hill ?

410a

but you could put the two or so most important Generals from different battles together on the same coin kind of like the Antietam or the Gettysburg ideas? Might work? I like the blue and grey box idea.

Bodie

I guess some people might object to the Great Nathan Bedford Forrest.

410a

but you see balance the coin with a Northern General at their most important battle?

Bodie

I see your point. A coin for a BATTLE and have the oposing generals facing each other might work.

ziggy29

Well, they *kinda* did this with stamps from 1961 to 1965. Each year they commemorated a major battle in one of those years. Maybe you'd have to wait until 2011 to 2015 (150th anniversary), but then you could probably create a Civil War series and perhaps include the generals in them.

Dabigkahuna

They had Grant and Lee on Commemorative if I remember?

Also, weren't both Lee and Grant only put in total command the last year of the war?

I think it would be a great idea!


Larry
Dabigkahuna

tjkillian

<< <i>I guess some people might object to the Great Nathan Bedford Forrest. >>



Remember, he quit that group after they became more vigilante. He was their leader for only short period of time. He did NOT approve of what they started to do, that is why he quit.

coinpictures

In today's climate of political correctness, a coin portraying ANY aspect of the Confederacy would never be permitted.

FullStrike

Now this is a Great Idea. But I think $1 Silver Slugs would be bigger and better.

GBurger717

There is a silver medal out from 1963 that has lee and grant on it. its also made in other metals also.

As for the Confederate army it was not only about the slavery part!!!! People need to get there head out of the rear and realize that! Its not hard to learn history.... and not the history our govrment / liberal media wants us to know!!!

NBF was one hell of a general and should get the respect he deserves! (I am in an interracial marriage and my wife loves both sides of the Civil War)

BillJones

As others have said any mention of successful Confederate generals would be politically incorrect. As for the Union side, there were more than few who don't deserve a commemorative coin because they did a poor job.

For those who really want tokens, medals, coins or political pieces with Civil War leaders on them, there plenty of items among "the old stuff" to fill that need. I guess you would have trouble finding a Nathan Bedford Forest piece, but there are Robert E. Lee pieces and an old Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson" medal available. As for the other side, there are plenty of Grant and McClellan pieces since they ran for President and a few William T. Sherman and Ambrose Burnside pieces available.

I don't see a reason to criticize this year's Five Star Generals set. I've been working on a presentation for my local club, and I've learned a lot in the process from this project. Each of these men deserve to be remembered by a commemorative coins, because they contributed to preserving our freedom. It's a lot more than you can say about the foolish first lady series, which has been issued for the sake of getting more money out of collectors and little more.

SaorAlba

It would be a lot easier and more politically correct to commemorate the idiot Union generals, George McClellan, that prolonged the war with their indecision and imaginary Confederate armies in their heads.

Nap

While someone like Forrest is an easy target to dislike because of his post-war racist associations, as well as for his role in the massacre at Fort Pillow, it should be remembered that many successful Union generals found post-war work in the systematic eradication of Native Americans.

Despite the 150 years that have passed, the Civil War still brings up strong emotions.

SaorAlba

<< <i>
Despite the 150 years that have passed, the Civil War still brings up strong emotions. >>



If you have ancestors on both sides like me you find that very true.

7Jaguars

GBurger, I am a bit shocked at your statement and must say I have trouble believing that a ?Black woman would just love the Confederacy. Also, perhaps you might want to review the text of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (now preserved inside the Lincoln Memorial) as to whether slavery was the driving issue or not.

NBF was evidently a leader, if not Grand Wizard of the KKK, and think we would do well to let that organization pass into infamous memory....He also owned and profited by the labor of slaves on his plantations, and presided over the massacre at Ft. Pillow. Will let it go.

As to a coin, perhaps best to leave history the sad events of the Civil War to the books.

ambro51

Unfortunately the 150th annv of the CW is not selling to a rapt crowd. Maybe the Ken Buens series done the magic before....but now people are sick of War. New war, old war.....senseless violence that is getting hard to paint as a pretty picture.

s4ny

They could do another Stone Mountain coin, this time with Jeff Davis on it.

Some Confederate Generals would not raise too much objection, like Stonewall Jackson and R. E. Lee.
Maybe Pickett and Longstreet, JEB Stuart, A P Hill, Hood, Joe Johnston.

SaorAlba

<< <i>They could do another Stone Mountain coin, this time with Jeff Davis on it.

Some Confederate Generals would not raise too much objection, like Stonewall Jackson and R. E. Lee.
Maybe Pickett and Longstreet, JEB Stuart, A P Hill, Hood, Joe Johnston. >>



Some like Pickett and Longstreet and President Davis probably really accomplished more for their adversaries than their constituents. Jackson and Lee were on halves back in the 1930s.

ricko

No interest at all..... would become just another 'jewelry' effort by the mint.... Cheers, RickO

BillJones

<< <i>They could do another Stone Mountain coin, this time with Jeff Davis on it.

Some Confederate Generals would not raise too much objection, like Stonewall Jackson and R. E. Lee.
Maybe Pickett and Longstreet, JEB Stuart, A P Hill, Hood, Joe Johnston. >>



Some the guys you mention here have had major detractors in the past.

George Picket - Robert E. Lee discharged him before the end of the war because of incompetence. Picket was off getting drunk and partying when the Union forces finally flanked the Confederates at Petersburg. It had to happen eventually, but the Picket was in no position to prevent it when it did happen.

As for Picket he regarded Lee as "the old man who killed my boys" as a result of the ill-fated charge that made him famous at Gettysburg.

James Longstreet was roundly vilified in Confederate circles because he was blamed for hesitating at Gettysburg, which Southern writers thought contributed to the Confederate defeat. After the war Longstreet committed two unforgivable sins. He became a Republican, and he publically criticized General Lee.

JEB Stewart - While generally revered as a Confederate saint, Stewart did fail to act as Lee's eyes and ears before Gettysburg which contributed to that Confederate defeat.

John Bell Hood - He was certainly bold and brave. After losing a leg and the use of an arm he continued to fight in the war, but his strategy as a general has to be seriously questioned. After he replaced Joe Johnson in the Atlanta campaign he ordered his men in useless aggressive actions which wasted lives and the dwindling Confederate resources.

GeorgeKellogg

<< <i>I guess you would have trouble finding a Nathan Bedford Forest piece, but there are Robert E. Lee pieces and an old Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson" medal available. >>



Here's an interesting Nathan Bedford Forrest collectible. NBF, who was president of the railroad after the war, lent his engraved signature to these notes.

Nap

<< <i>

<< <i>They could do another Stone Mountain coin, this time with Jeff Davis on it.

Some Confederate Generals would not raise too much objection, like Stonewall Jackson and R. E. Lee.
Maybe Pickett and Longstreet, JEB Stuart, A P Hill, Hood, Joe Johnston. >>



Some the guys you mention here have had major detractors in the past.

George Picket - Robert E. Lee discharged him before the end of the war because of incompetence. Picket was off getting drunk and partying when the Union forces finally flanked the Confederates at Petersburg. It had to happen eventually, but the Picket was in no position to prevent it when it did happen.

As for Picket he regarded Lee as "the old man who killed my boys" as a result of the ill-fated charge that made him famous at Gettysburg.

James Longstreet was roundly vilified in Confederate circles because he was blamed for hesitating at Gettysburg, which Southern writers thought contributed to the Confederate defeat. After the war Longstreet committed two unforgivable sins. He became a Republican, and he publically criticized General Lee.

JEB Stewart - While generally revered as a Confederate saint, Stewart did fail to act as Lee's eyes and ears before Gettysburg which contributed to that Confederate defeat.

John Bell Hood - He was certainly bold and brave. After losing a leg and the use of an arm he continued to fight in the war, but his strategy as a general has be seriously questioned. After he replaced Joe Johnson in the Atlanta campaign he ordered his men in useless aggressive actions which wasted lives and wasted the dwindling Confederate resources. >>




One can criticize Stonewall Jackson too. He was sluggish to advance his troops in the campaigns of the Seven Days, he wasted far too much time capturing Harper's Ferry during the Maryland campaign (and almost lost the battle of Antietam for it), and he left a gap in his line at Fredericksburg, among other things.

However, I can think of no subordinate military leaders in history that have been analyzed and overanalyzed like the Civil War generals. Not Washington's lieutenants, not Napoleon's marshals, not Allied generals of the world wars, certainly no military commanders in the last 50 years.

s4ny

The generals are more interesting than the Presidential wives.

Pickett was right about Lee. Longstreet got past the war and was reviled for that.

AP Hill, Joe Johnston, Stonewall Jackson, great generals.

The war was a slaughter of Americans.

ambro51

I want to see a Ben Butler set of commem silver spoons

BillJones

You might get a kick out of this piece from Ben Butler's 1884 presidential campaign as the Greenback Party candidate.

SaorAlba

The whole outcome of the war would have been very very different had George McClellan defeated Lincoln in the 1864 election. In the run up to the election even Lincoln thought he and the Union as we know it were finished. Most people today don't know that if McClellan had been elected he was running on a platform of ending the war amicably with the South.

BillJones

<< <i>The whole outcome of the war would have been very very different had George McClellan defeated Lincoln in the 1864 election. In the run up to the election even Lincoln thought he and the Union as we know it were finished. Most people today don't know that if McClellan had been elected he was running on a platform of ending the war amicably with the South. >>



That was the platform, but McClellan did what he could to run away from it. As Lincoln said the Democrats were either going to run a pro-war candidate on a peace platform or a peace candidate on a pro-war platform. They ended up doing the former. McClellan's running mate, George Pendleton was a notorious copperhead. He was one of the "bad guys" in the Spielberg's "Lincoln."

Here is a McClellan piece that was pro-Union. There are others, but there are also a couple McClellan copperhead Civil War Tokens as well.



A McClellan copperhead CWT ...



As to the whether or not the South could have held on if McClellan had been elected, that is an open question. President were inaugurated on March 4 in those days, not January 20. Lincoln and Grant would have had more time. Would McClellan have called off Grant and let the South live? I doubt it, given what he said during the campaign, but that is only an educated guess. McClellan was so vain that he might have sacked Grant out of jealousy.

Reconstruction, if there would have been one, would have very different under McClellan. He and many people in the Democratic Party believed in preserving slavery despite the fact that the country had just fought a Civil War over it. The slogan for the Democrats was, "Union as it was (reunited), the Constitution as it is" (with slavery still intact). This McClellan campaign medalet comes the closest to saying that.



Trying to hang your hat on "what ifs" in history is fun to do, but it's folly to say that you can do it with accuracy. There are so many variables, especially the ones you might never consider. People might say that McClellan was such a weak leader during the Civil War that he would have been a bad president. Yet, he did a wonderful job in training the Union Army and building its confidence that he might have been better in non-combat situations. He had been a successful business leader (president of Illinois Central Railroad) prior to the war.

Some men who have been elected President rise to the occasion like Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur had been political hack before he became president, but once he had the job he led efforts at civil service reform. Others, like James Buchanan, who had a wonderful resume (Congressman, Senator, secretary of state, ambassador to England and Russia) before he took office, are dismal failures.