Regarding the civil war, there's a real tendency for people to "pick sides" even now, and it's a jingoism that rankles me. It's as if the 620,000 civil war dead weren't enough to slake people's thirst for a fight.
By the time hostilities broke out, both the northern states and the southern states were itching for a fight. Both thought that the war would end quickly; they were horribly, tragically wrong.
I am not a fan of the confederate battle flag, nor am I a romantic about the antebellum U.S; but I am not going to tell people what they can or cannot memorialize. I'd rather have to put up with a flag I don't like and see a memorial to something I wouldn't commemorate than have them outlawed.
When I see a stone mountain commem, I don't get romantic about the antebellum south or the confederacy; I think about the hubris and tragedy of the civil war. Therefore, I see no problem with a monument to confederate soldiers.
<< <i>"the NAACP wanted his picture removed from the county building where it has been since the 1930's"
The funny thing about this is, no one seems to remember that the southern confederacy pretty much was the democrat party.
And now the NAACP which is basically a wing of the democrat party in our time, lobbies against the southern confederacy.
Democrats against democrats? >>
What makes it understandable is when you understand the shifting priorities of the Democrat Party. Even one century later in the 1960s, many Southern Democrats were against giving blacks more civil liberties. I don't believe the current Democrat Party continues to have this position.
Keets actually has the KKK thing almost right. Stone Mountain GA was the national headquarters of the KKK, however the town is not the mountain, which was privately owned by a non-KKK family. The mountain was leased for the project well after the formation of the KKK. Legend suggests a few founding members climbed the mountain and burned a cross to form the organization (makes for a good story), it was actually organized in the town of Stone Mountain. He is correct that the KKK was Chartered by the State of Georgia as a Fraternal Organization, and it was later chartered by the US Congress as well. I know Georgia revoked the Charter in 1947, I assume the Feds have done the same.
However, the Stone Mountain commemorative was not sponsored by the KKK, it was sponsored by the Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that had been around the area much longer than the KKK. But the KKK certainly publicly supported the plan. It was no secret that the KKK had many members on the Stone Mountain Confederacy Memorial Association and that is one of the reasons the commemorative legislation had a tough time getting through congress. To appease the opponents the Legislation was amended with the phrase "and in memory of Warren G. Harding, President of the United States of America in whose administration the work was begun". Of course, we know that the approved design has no mention of Warren G Harding, but the added wording was enough to get the legislation passed.
As for the Civil War being about Slavery, it is an interesting fact that General Grant was a Slave owner until 1865. While he was at war, his wife was being taken care of by their four slaves.
The Stone Mountain Memorial commemorates the men who served their government with the ultimate sacrifice, not the government or the policy.
<< <i>Jeez Keets, The coin I posted earlier showed up in the mail today and it is fantastic. Why'd you have to go and rain on my parade >>
Actually I think this is a great thread. Commemoratives are meant to highlight specific events in history and to have a coin generate this kind of discussion 82 years after it was made means the coin did it's job IMO. One reason the classic commemorative series was stopped was because many issues did not highlight events of national significance which clearly does not apply with this particular commem.
<< <i>As for the Civil War being about Slavery, it is an interesting fact that General Grant was a Slave owner until 1865. While he was at war, his wife was being taken care of by their four slaves. >>
It's an interesting fact but General Grant is just one person. I'm sure you're not saying Grant's personal views represented the northern position on why the conflict started and was fought, are you? Are you saying that the Civil War was not fought over a conflict that developed over slavery and slave power?
Metaphorically speaking, a touchstone is similar to a litmus test. I must assume then that The Stone Mountain commem fails your litmus test?
no, not really. and what you and others seem to be missing is that the point i'm trying to make has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the KKK's choice of locations for renewing their organization, chartered by a State Government!!! please don't take my comments so personally, they aren't meant to be directed to anyone unless you're counted among the number who burn crosses and where white sheets and hoods. the word Touchstone evokes spiritual images of touching, making contact, having a solid base, and being a tangible reminder of truth. we all know the truths that the KKK stood for and you should be able to understand the significance of the "hilltop" or the "mountain" as it relates to spiritual thought or symbolism. those are the reasons it was chosen prior to it's use on the coin and i think it's folly for anyone to deny that it still holds that same significance for many, many people.
All I have to say is a big SO WHAT. The KKK is a tiny fringe organization these days, more the object of joke and ridicule than an organization to be feared or an organization with any real power. The link to the monument on the mountain still seems minor despite ten posts by Keets. If he doesn't like the coin fine, but to expect me to follow his preferences is unrealistic. No one else seems to be getting it either, so maybe alll the readers are dense, or the point is a weak one.
Some folks don't like Washington and Jefferson depicted on the money because they owned slaves. I'm not going to side with those folks and dump all my coins and currency with those two presidents. If someone has strong feelings about it, fine, don't collect that stuff.
<< <i>As for the Civil War being about Slavery, it is an interesting fact that General Grant was a Slave owner until 1865. While he was at war, his wife was being taken care of by their four slaves. >>
It's an interesting fact but General Grant is just one person. I'm sure you're not saying Grant's personal views represented the northern position on why the conflict started and was fought, are you? Are you saying that the Civil War was not fought over a conflict that developed over slavery and slave power? >>
From what I've studied of history, it's more like this:
1. From the union's point of view, the civil war was not initially about slavery, it was about preventing secession.
2. however, the secession was about slavery.
Emancipation was not a much of an "easy sell" in 1861 as it would be now. A great many states that remained in the union owned slaves. Had emancipation been issued immediately upon the secession, they'd have seceded also. The initial proclamation, incidentally, only freed slaves in reconquered southern territory, again to protect those slave-owning states still in the union and to appease anti-emancipation northerners.
Slave-owning states that seceded saw the writing on the wall. Lincoln was elected to the presidency under a policy of "Slavery goes this far, and no farther". That meant that slavery would continue in slave owning states, but no new states added to the union would be slave-owning. Within a generation (or less), the slave-owning states would be greatly outnumbered in the federal government, and their economic system would be legislated out of existence. At the rate of population growth and the rapid shift of political power northwards, that might have happened within a decade.
The civil war did not arise out of a vaccuum. The 1850s were a very contentious time in U.S. politics. Every time a territory voted for statehood a war would practically break out in that territory over whether the state would allow slavery or not. This had been a problem for decades, for example the 1820 Missouri compromise headed off a similar impasse.
It was about money, at least partially, just like most wars. My understanding is that most of the federal tariffs on cotton and tobacco exports was going to build northern manufacturing infrastructure and the southern states were getting crumbs. So they exercised their constitutional right to secede. What was different here than the American Revolution? Slavery only became an issue later in the war when Lincoln was trying to sway France & Great Britian from supporting the southern cause.
Best regards,
John
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
For those concerned about the white supremacists who rule atop Stone Mountain:
<< <i>Stone Mountain Demographics from wikipedia...
African Americans make up 69.21% of Stone Mountain's population. It is one of the wealthiest majority-black areas in the United States. As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 7,145 people, 2,499 households, and 1,759 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,702.9/km² (4,423.4/mi²). There were 2,638 housing units at an average density of 628.7/km² (1,633.2/mi²). The racial makeup of the city was 24.49% White, 69.21% African American, 0.21% Native American, 1.96% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 1.54% from other races, and 2.55% from two or more races.Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.09% of the population.
There were 2,499 households out of which 41.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 38.1% were married couples living together, 25.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 29.6% were non-families. 23.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 4.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.84 and the average family size was 3.36.
In the city the population was spread out with 32.2% under the age of 18, 9.5% from 18 to 24, 35.6% from 25 to 44, 17.1% from 45 to 64, and 5.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 30 years. For every 100 females there were 86.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 80.5 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $98,603, and the median income for a family was $140,888. Males had a median income of $89,302 versus $83,854 for females. The per capita income for the city was $79,130. About 1.3% of families and 1.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.2% of those under age 18 and 1.1% of those age 65 or over. >>
<< <i>So they exercised their constitutional right to secede. What was different here than the American Revolution? >>
There's the rub. The Articles of Confederation had strong language on states rights. The Constitution does not. Indeed, had the vote been taken to supercede the Articles of Confederation it's highly improb- able that the Constitution could have passed without an extensive rewrite. This vote was never taken so technically the Constitution is unconstitutional (much as the Supreme Court has been trying to prove for decades).
History would be very much different today if a few things had gone differently.
I'm no fan of Robert E Lee but there's no question that he was a great general. I am a fan of Borglun and there's no question he was a great sculptor. The fact that the sculture is really well executed as is the coin and of a very well respected subject are probably much of the reason for the popularity of the coin.
<< <i>It was about money, at least partially, just like most wars. My understanding is that most of the federal tariffs on cotton and tobacco exports was going to build northern manufacturing infrastructure and the southern states were getting crumbs. So they exercised their constitutional right to secede. What was different here than the American Revolution? Slavery only became an issue later in the war when Lincoln was trying to sway France & Great Britian from supporting the southern cause.
Best regards,
John >>
I disagree that slavery only became an issue later. Even though the north was not quite as abolitionist as one might think, Lincoln's party certainly was. Lincoln himself was viewed as a moderate within the party, particularly when compared to other candidates for 1860 primary. Even if Lincoln's "moderate" policy of "this far, and no farther" had been enacted, the southern states would see their power erode and their economies marred. Lincoln himself had issued a challenge, saying that in time the nation would have to be all slave or all free, not half of each.
To think that abolition was not on the Southern states's minds when they seceded is simply wrong. I'll concede that it was more economics than morality, their economy depended on the agriculture, which at the time depended on slave labor. Abolition of slavery would throw that into disarray.
Slavery was never a minor issue in U.S. politics, whether we're talking about the 3/5ths compromise or the Missouri compromise. Neither the slave nor free states wanted the other to get the balance of power. The tipping point came when it was clear that the balance of power in the federal government was swinging inexorably against the slave-owning states.
I like the coin, too. Nice ones are reasonably priced, and they have historical significance to a very broad segment of American citizens.
Any bias I might have been taught to have against the southern states was cured when I saw school buses full of black kids being stoned and set on fire by white folks who did not want their kids taken across town on a bus to go to school. BTW, that series of violent incidents happened just outside of Boston, MA in the 1960s.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Although Congress intended the issue to honor both Southern soldiers who had fallen in all the wars up to 1925 and the memory of assassinated President Warren G. Harding, the final design of this issue was solely a memorial to the Confederacy.
Hmmmm, since when did Harding not just die in office of a heart attack, but was assassinated?????? Don't think that FACT is quite right.....
As to the SMQ, I enjoy mine as they are an affordable piece, and I personally like the design, much more imaginative than what we have today, especially with the 'commercial' state quarters and the fugly pres dollars!!
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on; I don't do these things to other people, I require the same from them."
The problem here is that as much as people try to separate the issues of slavery and states' rights, in the minds of many the two are hopelessly intertwined. Even if some people acknowledge that the Civil War was as much about states' rights as anything, it was mostly about the states' rights to continue slavery and support 'popular sovereignty'. (And to some degree, the right to secede from the union, which a reasonable person could believe the 10th Amendment allowed since there was no prohibition on secession in the Constitution itself, thus leaving the issue to the states and the people.)
Andrew Jackson was prepared to hang John Calhoun's (vice president & senator from S.C.) South Carolina coherts for trying to secede from the Union over the Tarriff Issue in 1832. Except they called it Nullification then.
Later Lincoln built upon Jackson's proclamation against nullification to sustain his position against secession.
<< <i>Later Lincoln built upon Jackson's proclamation against nullification to sustain his position against secession. >>
First secession, then jury rights. It's interesting how the government "finds" justification for policies prohibiting nullification that have no basis in Constitutional law.
<< <i>Later Lincoln built upon Jackson's proclamation against nullification to sustain his position against secession. >>
First secession, then jury rights. It's interesting how the government "finds" justification for policies prohibiting nullification that have no basis in Constitutional law. >>
Jackson lost some of his Southern political allies over the issue but they did not call him "Old Hickory" for nothing.
Jackson in his tenure as President was greater than the constitution. His indomitable will overpowered all who opposed him.
Also Jackson's proclamation against nullification was a closely reasoned argument that the Union resided in the people and that the politicians in no state had the right to usurp the right of the people to their status as part of the Union. (This was one aspect of his proclamation; albeit, crudely paraphrased by BB.)
<< <i>Also Jackson's proclamation against nullification was a closely reasoned argument that the Union resided in the people and that the politicians in no state had the right to usurp the right of the people to their status as part of the Union. (This was one aspect of his proclamation; albeit, crudely paraphrased by BB.) >>
That's Jackson's proclamation, not the U.S. Constitution's. Last time I checked, one of the reasons the United States revolted for independence from Great Britain was to get rid of "kings."
It's unfortunate that the electorate and the courts have let it happen. There's no Constitutional reference to a "permanently binding" status with respect to annexation or statehood.
That's Jackson's proclamation, not the U.S. Constitution's. Last time I checked, one of the reasons the United States revolted for independence from Great Britain was to get rid of "kings." It's unfortunate that the electorate and the courts have let it happen. There's no Constitutional reference to a "permanently binding" status with respect to annexation or statehood.
Jackson even threw a Federal Judge in jail in New Orleans circa 1816. Later the Senate censured Jackson for doing it, but his old political ally Senator Thomas Hart Benton, from Missouri, came to his rescue many years later and had the censure expunged from the Senate records.
However as an interesting side note. Jesse Benton shot Jackson in a brawl after Jackson tried to cane him. Thomas Benton participated in the brawl with his brother. But many years later Thomas became a devoted ally with Jackson, unlike Jesse who hated Jackson until his dying day.
King Bullion was Benton's name as he backed Jackson's veto against Biddle in the US bank re-charter.
Politics were just a little different in Circa 1830 than they are today.
<< <i>Although Congress intended the issue to honor both Southern soldiers who had fallen in all the wars up to 1925 and the memory of assassinated President Warren G. Harding, the final design of this issue was solely a memorial to the Confederacy. >>
<< <i>Hmmmm, since when did Harding not just die in office of a heart attack, but was assassinated?????? Don't think that FACT is quite right..... >>
My source may have been incorrect
"Harding died on August 2, 1923. The official cause of death was listed as a stroke. Some doctors felt that a more likely cause was a heart attack. Some people believed that Harding's wife had finally become fed up with his affairs, and poisoned him because the scandal was coming to the surface. The fact that Mrs. Harding refused to allow an autopsy, and would not permit a death mask to be made gave fuel to these rumors."
Like most of history, depends on who you want to believe.
For the purpose of clarification the original question was--- 'Why is the Stone Mountain Commemorative Half- Dollar such a perennial favorite with collectors?" Answer- "God has chosen the foolish things of life to confound the wise"
Comments
By the time hostilities broke out, both the northern states and the southern states were itching for a fight. Both thought that the war would end quickly; they were horribly, tragically wrong.
I am not a fan of the confederate battle flag, nor am I a romantic about the antebellum U.S; but I am not going to tell people what they can or cannot memorialize. I'd rather have to put up with a flag I don't like and see a memorial to something I wouldn't commemorate than have them outlawed.
When I see a stone mountain commem, I don't get romantic about the antebellum south or the confederacy; I think about the hubris and tragedy of the civil war. Therefore, I see no problem with a monument to confederate soldiers.
The coin I posted earlier showed up in the mail today and it is fantastic. Why'd you have to go and rain on my parade
<< <i>"the NAACP wanted his picture removed from the county building where it has been since the 1930's"
The funny thing about this is, no one seems to remember that
the southern confederacy pretty much was the democrat party.
And now the NAACP which is basically a wing of the democrat
party in our time, lobbies against the southern confederacy.
Democrats against democrats? >>
What makes it understandable is when you understand the shifting priorities of the Democrat Party. Even one century later in the 1960s, many Southern Democrats were against giving blacks more civil liberties. I don't believe the current Democrat Party continues to have this position.
However, the Stone Mountain commemorative was not sponsored by the KKK, it was sponsored by the Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that had been around the area much longer than the KKK. But the KKK certainly publicly supported the plan. It was no secret that the KKK had many members on the Stone Mountain Confederacy Memorial Association and that is one of the reasons the commemorative legislation had a tough time getting through congress. To appease the opponents the Legislation was amended with the phrase "and in memory of Warren G. Harding, President of the United States of America in whose administration the work was begun". Of course, we know that the approved design has no mention of Warren G Harding, but the added wording was enough to get the legislation passed.
As for the Civil War being about Slavery, it is an interesting fact that General Grant was a Slave owner until 1865. While he was at war, his wife was being taken care of by their four slaves.
The Stone Mountain Memorial commemorates the men who served their government with the ultimate sacrifice, not the government or the policy.
<< <i>Jeez Keets,
The coin I posted earlier showed up in the mail today and it is fantastic. Why'd you have to go and rain on my parade
Actually I think this is a great thread. Commemoratives are meant to highlight specific events in history and to have a coin generate this kind of discussion 82 years after it was made means the coin did it's job IMO. One reason the classic commemorative series was stopped was because many issues did not highlight events of national significance which clearly does not apply with this particular commem.
<< <i>As for the Civil War being about Slavery, it is an interesting fact that General Grant was a Slave owner until 1865. While he was at war, his wife was being taken care of by their four slaves. >>
It's an interesting fact but General Grant is just one person. I'm sure you're not saying Grant's personal views represented the northern position on why the conflict started and was fought, are you? Are you saying that the Civil War was not fought over a conflict that developed over slavery and slave power?
no, not really. and what you and others seem to be missing is that the point i'm trying to make has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the KKK's choice of locations for renewing their organization, chartered by a State Government!!! please don't take my comments so personally, they aren't meant to be directed to anyone unless you're counted among the number who burn crosses and where white sheets and hoods. the word Touchstone evokes spiritual images of touching, making contact, having a solid base, and being a tangible reminder of truth. we all know the truths that the KKK stood for and you should be able to understand the significance of the "hilltop" or the "mountain" as it relates to spiritual thought or symbolism. those are the reasons it was chosen prior to it's use on the coin and i think it's folly for anyone to deny that it still holds that same significance for many, many people.
Some folks don't like Washington and Jefferson depicted on the money because they owned slaves. I'm not going to side with those folks and dump all my coins and currency with those two presidents. If someone has strong feelings about it, fine, don't collect that stuff.
where'd you go to school?? you're actually seeing double.
and i'm right here, no need to talk like i'm not in the room......................
<< <i>
<< <i>As for the Civil War being about Slavery, it is an interesting fact that General Grant was a Slave owner until 1865. While he was at war, his wife was being taken care of by their four slaves. >>
It's an interesting fact but General Grant is just one person. I'm sure you're not saying Grant's personal views represented the northern position on why the conflict started and was fought, are you? Are you saying that the Civil War was not fought over a conflict that developed over slavery and slave power? >>
From what I've studied of history, it's more like this:
1. From the union's point of view, the civil war was not initially about slavery, it was about preventing secession.
2. however, the secession was about slavery.
Emancipation was not a much of an "easy sell" in 1861 as it would be now. A great many states that remained in the union owned slaves. Had emancipation been issued immediately upon the secession, they'd have seceded also. The initial proclamation, incidentally, only freed slaves in reconquered southern territory, again to protect those slave-owning states still in the union and to appease anti-emancipation northerners.
Slave-owning states that seceded saw the writing on the wall. Lincoln was elected to the presidency under a policy of "Slavery goes this far, and no farther". That meant that slavery would continue in slave owning states, but no new states added to the union would be slave-owning. Within a generation (or less), the slave-owning states would be greatly outnumbered in the federal government, and their economic system would be legislated out of existence. At the rate of population growth and the rapid shift of political power northwards, that might have happened within a decade.
The civil war did not arise out of a vaccuum. The 1850s were a very contentious time in U.S. politics. Every time a territory voted for statehood a war would practically break out in that territory over whether the state would allow slavery or not. This had been a problem for decades, for example the 1820 Missouri compromise headed off a similar impasse.
Best regards,
John
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>Stone Mountain Demographics from wikipedia...
African Americans make up 69.21% of Stone Mountain's population. It is one of the wealthiest majority-black areas in the United States. As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 7,145 people, 2,499 households, and 1,759 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,702.9/km² (4,423.4/mi²). There were 2,638 housing units at an average density of 628.7/km² (1,633.2/mi²). The racial makeup of the city was 24.49% White, 69.21% African American, 0.21% Native American, 1.96% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 1.54% from other races, and 2.55% from two or more races.Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.09% of the population.
There were 2,499 households out of which 41.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 38.1% were married couples living together, 25.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 29.6% were non-families. 23.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 4.9% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.84 and the average family size was 3.36.
In the city the population was spread out with 32.2% under the age of 18, 9.5% from 18 to 24, 35.6% from 25 to 44, 17.1% from 45 to 64, and 5.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 30 years. For every 100 females there were 86.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 80.5 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $98,603, and the median income for a family was $140,888. Males had a median income of $89,302 versus $83,854 for females. The per capita income for the city was $79,130. About 1.3% of families and 1.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.2% of those under age 18 and 1.1% of those age 65 or over. >>
<< <i>So they exercised their constitutional right to secede. What was different here than the American Revolution? >>
They lost
<< <i>So they exercised their constitutional right to secede. What was different here than the American Revolution? >>
There's the rub. The Articles of Confederation had strong language on states rights. The Constitution
does not. Indeed, had the vote been taken to supercede the Articles of Confederation it's highly improb-
able that the Constitution could have passed without an extensive rewrite. This vote was never taken so
technically the Constitution is unconstitutional (much as the Supreme Court has been trying to prove for
decades).
History would be very much different today if a few things had gone differently.
I'm no fan of Robert E Lee but there's no question that he was a great general. I am a fan of Borglun and
there's no question he was a great sculptor. The fact that the sculture is really well executed as is the coin
and of a very well respected subject are probably much of the reason for the popularity of the coin.
<< <i>It was about money, at least partially, just like most wars. My understanding is that most of the federal tariffs on cotton and tobacco exports was going to build northern manufacturing infrastructure and the southern states were getting crumbs. So they exercised their constitutional right to secede. What was different here than the American Revolution? Slavery only became an issue later in the war when Lincoln was trying to sway France & Great Britian from supporting the southern cause.
Best regards,
John >>
I disagree that slavery only became an issue later. Even though the north was not quite as abolitionist as one might think, Lincoln's party certainly was. Lincoln himself was viewed as a moderate within the party, particularly when compared to other candidates for 1860 primary. Even if Lincoln's "moderate" policy of "this far, and no farther" had been enacted, the southern states would see their power erode and their economies marred. Lincoln himself had issued a challenge, saying that in time the nation would have to be all slave or all free, not half of each.
To think that abolition was not on the Southern states's minds when they seceded is simply wrong. I'll concede that it was more economics than morality, their economy depended on the agriculture, which at the time depended on slave labor. Abolition of slavery would throw that into disarray.
Slavery was never a minor issue in U.S. politics, whether we're talking about the 3/5ths compromise or the Missouri compromise. Neither the slave nor free states wanted the other to get the balance of power. The tipping point came when it was clear that the balance of power in the federal government was swinging inexorably against the slave-owning states.
Just think it has to do with history and heritage.
I respect MLK and I also respect this gentleman. jws
You should have your answer by now
have historical significance to a very broad segment of American
citizens.
Any bias I might have been taught to have against the southern
states was cured when I saw school buses full of black kids being
stoned and set on fire by white folks who did not want their kids
taken across town on a bus to go to school. BTW, that series of
violent incidents happened just outside of Boston, MA in the 1960s.
As well as freed slaves, poor imigrants, Homestead Act, building railroads, hustling Indians out of land,
and the beginning of an industrialized nation. I don't own the coin, but now I'm going to search for one.
Good thread Keets.
Anyone else a junkie of the Ken Burns "civil war" series?
I'm also a fan of the film "Gettysburg", despite the lousy prop facial hair.
Hmmmm, since when did Harding not just die in office of a heart attack, but was assassinated?????? Don't think that FACT is quite right.....
As to the SMQ, I enjoy mine as they are an affordable piece, and I personally like the design, much more imaginative than what we have today, especially with the 'commercial' state quarters and the fugly pres dollars!!
<< <i>As to the SMQ >>
What does the Q mean in SMQ?
The problem here is that as much as people try to separate the issues of slavery and states' rights, in the minds of many the two are hopelessly intertwined. Even if some people acknowledge that the Civil War was as much about states' rights as anything, it was mostly about the states' rights to continue slavery and support 'popular sovereignty'. (And to some degree, the right to secede from the union, which a reasonable person could believe the 10th Amendment allowed since there was no prohibition on secession in the Constitution itself, thus leaving the issue to the states and the people.)
Andrew Jackson was prepared to hang John Calhoun's (vice president & senator from S.C.) South Carolina coherts for trying to secede from the Union over the Tarriff Issue in 1832. Except they called it Nullification then.
Later Lincoln built upon Jackson's proclamation against nullification to sustain his position against secession.
As Andrew Jackson often said: "Go ask Biddle."
<< <i>Later Lincoln built upon Jackson's proclamation against nullification to sustain his position against secession. >>
First secession, then jury rights. It's interesting how the government "finds" justification for policies prohibiting nullification that have no basis in Constitutional law.
<< <i>
<< <i>Later Lincoln built upon Jackson's proclamation against nullification to sustain his position against secession. >>
First secession, then jury rights. It's interesting how the government "finds" justification for policies prohibiting nullification that have no basis in Constitutional law. >>
Jackson lost some of his Southern political allies over the issue but they did not call him "Old Hickory" for nothing.
Jackson in his tenure as President was greater than the constitution. His indomitable will overpowered all who opposed him.
Also Jackson's proclamation against nullification was a closely reasoned argument that the Union resided in the people and that the politicians in no state had the right to usurp the right of the people to their status as part of the Union. (This was one aspect of his proclamation; albeit, crudely paraphrased by BB.)
Ziggy29 where are you? This conversation was just getting interesting.
<< <i>Also Jackson's proclamation against nullification was a closely reasoned argument that the Union resided in the people and that the politicians in no state had the right to usurp the right of the people to their status as part of the Union. (This was one aspect of his proclamation; albeit, crudely paraphrased by BB.) >>
That's Jackson's proclamation, not the U.S. Constitution's. Last time I checked, one of the reasons the United States revolted for independence from Great Britain was to get rid of "kings."
It's unfortunate that the electorate and the courts have let it happen. There's no Constitutional reference to a "permanently binding" status with respect to annexation or statehood.
Jackson even threw a Federal Judge in jail in New Orleans circa 1816. Later the Senate censured Jackson for doing it, but his old political ally Senator Thomas Hart Benton, from Missouri, came to his rescue many years later and had the censure expunged from the Senate records.
However as an interesting side note. Jesse Benton shot Jackson in a brawl after Jackson tried to cane him. Thomas Benton participated in the brawl with his brother. But many years later Thomas became a devoted ally with Jackson, unlike Jesse who hated Jackson until his dying day.
King Bullion was Benton's name as he backed Jackson's veto against Biddle in the US bank re-charter.
Politics were just a little different in Circa 1830 than they are today.
BB
<< <i>Although Congress intended the issue to honor both Southern soldiers who had fallen in all the wars up to 1925 and the memory of assassinated President Warren G. Harding, the final design of this issue was solely a memorial to the Confederacy. >>
<< <i>Hmmmm, since when did Harding not just die in office of a heart attack, but was assassinated?????? Don't think that FACT is quite right..... >>
My source may have been incorrect
"Harding died on August 2, 1923. The official cause of death was listed as a stroke. Some doctors felt that a more likely cause was a heart attack. Some people believed that Harding's wife had finally become fed up with his affairs, and poisoned him because the scandal was coming to the surface. The fact that Mrs. Harding refused to allow an autopsy, and would not permit a death mask to be made gave fuel to these rumors."
Like most of history, depends on who you want to believe.
'Why is the Stone Mountain Commemorative Half- Dollar such a perennial favorite with collectors?"
Answer-
"God has chosen the foolish things of life to confound the wise"
Yea, that was good, also check out the Shelby Foote
historical books on the civil war.
It's three huge volumnes, and several thousand pages,
but beautifully written, very engaging.
Robert E. Lee seems to have personally been
responsible for lengthening the war a year or two.
By his high quality generalship.
And yes, I like the Stone Mountain Half, too.
Regards, Steve.