Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

I hope not.
I'd hate for this discussion to transmogriphy any more.

In the alternative, why not go for equal time on all currency by honoring the slaves and natives?

Before its death, the coon developed into the most blatantly degrading of all black stereotypes. The pure coons emerged as no-account niggers, those unreliable, crazy, lazy, subhuman creatures good for nothing more than eating watermelons, stealing chickens, shooting crap, or butchering the English language.

Mexica wrote:

I hope not.
I'd hate for this discussion to transmogriphy any more.

Just for the record (and at the risk of being one of those annoying nit-pickers), when you're using a 50-cent-word please spell it properly. According to my American Heritage dictionary, as well as the A2k spellchecker, it's spelled transmogrify (not phy).

Carry on as I see the second time around you spelled it correctly.

The issue is should past slave-owning presidents be removed from the face of American currency.
-jasonrest

At first read, I was inclined to react in similar fashion as some of the able2know regulars. That is to say, I initially thought it was silly question that would provoke an obvious "no." However, after thinking about all I have read on this thread and thinking it over, I no longer see it [for reasons I wouldn't want to bore you with] as a silly question and I do not see a "no" answer as quite so obvious. So, let's suppose all the debate and work was done, and this question made it to a public vote: would I vote "yes" or "no"? I'm inclined to think I'd vote "yes."

Anyone that considers forced slavery a crime, (which I think most do) without anything further, assigns that label to these men without my help.
-jasonrest

This too was interesting. Was slavery a crime? I'm inclined to side with your verbose e-adversary. I mean, slavery wasn't a crime in Washington's time, so he could hardly be said to have violated any law of his time. Not to "transmogriphy" this discussion any further, but I wonder how many would agree that Hitler, like past so-called American slave owners, was not a criminal?

LOL - maybe Chumly had a point, as far as "butchering the English language" goes.... Ragman: the offending term appears on page 4 of this thread - Mex was probably joking.

High Seas wrote:

LOL - maybe Chumly had a point, as far as "butchering the English language" goes.... Ragman: the offending term appears on page 4 of this thread - Mex was probably joking.

Thanks for that clarification. My apologies for not reading back in the thread; however, because Mex spelled it 2 diff ways it seemed that you were unclear about its spelling.

Ragman wrote:

High Seas wrote:

LOL - maybe Chumly had a point, as far as "butchering the English language" goes.... Ragman: the offending term appears on page 4 of this thread - Mex was probably joking.

Thanks for that clarification. My apologies for not reading back in the thread; however, because Mex spelled it 2 diff ways it seemed that you were unclear about its spelling.

Not I, and also not the kind lady who tried to correct Jason by spelling it correctly in her own post, also on page 4.

Even after reading and quoting her response, though, he fails to see the correction - more evidence that Chumly may have been right after all

jasonrest wrote:

I am also mindful of this country's marred past and unfortunately these "less than perfect" men participated in one of the most horrific crimes of American History; a crime having much to do with the success of this country.

Slavery was never a contributing factor in the success of the United States. The United States succeeded despite slavery, not because of it.

Just for the record (and at the risk of being one of those annoying nit-pickers), when you're using a 50-cent-word please spell it properly. According to my American Heritage dictionary, as well as the A2k spellchecker, it's spelled transmogrify (not phy).

-Ragman

LOL - maybe Chumly had a point, as far as "butchering the English language" goes.... Ragman: the offending term appears on page 4 of this thread - Mex was probably joking.
-High Seas

Rag, High is correct. Indeed it was said in jest.
However, if in the future you feel the need to correct any of my misspelling (what ever its monetary value) or grammar, know that you have my blessing.

Again, I have already admitted that being semantically correct, the founders in question committed no crime but.....well you know the rest.
I wish not to repeat the same statements.
- jasonrest

Easy there, champ. I was just stating my opinion; I wasn't looking for you to concede anything.

The new question is does the good outweigh the bad.
-jasonrest

On the surface, this seems a rather silly question.
But I too would like to read the any responses.

Setanta wrote:

jasonrest wrote:

I am also mindful of this country's marred past and unfortunately these "less than perfect" men participated in one of the most horrific crimes of American History; a crime having much to do with the success of this country.

Slavery was never a contributing factor in the success of the United States. The United States succeeded despite slavery, not because of it.

I respectfully disagree.
I won't humor the tangent in order to keep the board focused but, I disagree.
Also, I did not say that this country's success was based solely on the benefits of slavery but that it was significant.

If we consider the USA as if it were but a single person, for a moment, we can ask: Isn't the person allowed to evolve away from the bad decisions of the past, and be considered for the man he is, today? He would not now be a slave holder. The past is what it is, and we cannot move to a better future, if we let the past shackle our movement. I personally have made some horrendous decisions in the past, but I have outgrown the propensity for such action. Time to focus on how to organize a better present and future. We should learn from our past, not be mired in in it forever.

Slavery was not part, not even an insignificant one, in the success of the United States.

Slavery was not part, not even an insignificant one, in the success of the United States.