New $20 bills...

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Jericho941 »

Heroes are honored. Traitors and scoundrels are buried.
Aesop
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:17 am

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Aesop »

Until now, when we turn that concept on its head.
Johhnyreb wrote:Tubman was a heroin
Malaprops/typo Win Of The Week Award. :lol:
I do not think that word means what you think it means, but I like it better than what you probably intended.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Johnnyreb
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:02 am

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Johnnyreb »

Good grief, I used the spell check on that. :lol:

And I do mean Andrew Jackson. The reason he is on the money is because if he had not been president, the history of our country would be a different story. Aside from facing off with South Carolina over a tariff and being the first President to deny the right of secession, there was the spoils system. Jackson was the first President to go whole hog in sacking govt. employees, such as Postmasters, and handing their jobs to his political supporters. His actions let to the creation of the Civil Service in 1883 to protect government employees from the spoils system. So yeah, he wasn't to my mind a real good President, but he is a major figure in our history.

As for Stonewall Jackson, he is famous, but history has failed to point out his flaws much. His men were called the foot cavalry because when sent his marching orders, instead of marching at once, at a moderate pace, and arriving at the battle with most of his troops fresh and ready for the fight... Instead he usually moped and sat on his ass in a melancholy... and then force marched his troops to make up for his tardiness, arriving for the battle with only half his men and them tired and worn out and the other half scattered in his wake, left behind with badly blistered feet, unfit to fight for days to come if not longer.

What might Lee have done had he been able to wield all of Jackson's Corps instead of just half of it?
MarkD
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by MarkD »

Johnnyreb wrote:Good grief, I used the spell check on that. :lol:

And I do mean Andrew Jackson. The reason he is on the money is because if he had not been president, the history of our country would be a different story. Aside from facing off with South Carolina over a tariff and being the first President to deny the right of secession, there was the spoils system. Jackson was the first President to go whole hog in sacking govt. employees, such as Postmasters, and handing their jobs to his political supporters. His actions let to the creation of the Civil Service in 1883 to protect government employees from the spoils system. So yeah, he wasn't to my mind a real good President, but he is a major figure in our history.

As for Stonewall Jackson, he is famous, but history has failed to point out his flaws much. His men were called the foot cavalry because when sent his marching orders, instead of marching at once, at a moderate pace, and arriving at the battle with most of his troops fresh and ready for the fight... Instead he usually moped and sat on his ass in a melancholy... and then force marched his troops to make up for his tardiness, arriving for the battle with only half his men and them tired and worn out and the other half scattered in his wake, left behind with badly blistered feet, unfit to fight for days to come if not longer.

What might Lee have done had he been able to wield all of Jackson's Corps instead of just half of it?
Ah, OK. Lee got a good deal of his reputation from Stonewall though, note his lack if success at Gettysburg. I'm not sure Lee would have been so successful without TJ. For all his faults Stonewall got things done.

And the best Lee could have done was prolong the war of attrition. The North was gonna win, the only question was how many bodies it would take.
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Jericho941 »

If having a major impact on our history was the qualifier, we might as well put Hitler and Stalin on our money.
User avatar
Kommander
Posts: 3761
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:13 am

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Kommander »

Jericho941 wrote:If having a major impact on our history was the qualifier, we might as well put Hitler and Stalin on our money.
I still think that the Iwo flag raising should be on one of our bills. Probably should put a marine on the front too then.
User avatar
Dinochrome One
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Dinochrome One »

Kommander wrote:
Jericho941 wrote:If having a major impact on our history was the qualifier, we might as well put Hitler and Stalin on our money.
I still think that the Iwo flag raising should be on one of our bills. Probably should put a marine on the front too then.
I second this notion and nominate Chesty Puller.
Maxim 34: If you're only leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
User avatar
Rich
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Rich »

Dinochrome One wrote:
Kommander wrote:
Jericho941 wrote:If having a major impact on our history was the qualifier, we might as well put Hitler and Stalin on our money.
I still think that the Iwo flag raising should be on one of our bills. Probably should put a marine on the front too then.
I second this notion and nominate Chesty Puller.
Gomer Pyle 8-)
A weak government usually remains a servant of citizens, while a strong government usually becomes the master of its subjects.
- paraphrased from several sources

A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2871
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by MiddleAgedKen »

Smedley Butler.
Shop at Traitor Joe's: Just 10% to the Big Guy gets you the whole store and everything in it!
Johnnyreb
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:02 am

Re: New $20 bills...

Post by Johnnyreb »

Jackson did fight well once he got there. But his force marching to make up for his delays cost him half his corp's fighting strength. That was his big flaw. Longstreet didn't have this flaw, he got his men there in good time and decently rested. But his flaw was that the only opinions he cared to hear were his own opinions. When he didn't like his orders, he found ways to drag his feet or be petulant about it.

It was Colonel John W. Tomason's biography of J.E.B. Stuart that convinced me that Stuart was Lee's best, most reliable General. Stuart didn't drag his feet and he didn't pout about orders he did not like. He carried out all of his orders with vigor and speed. When Jackson was killed, Stuart commanded his corps for several days, in battle, and did very well. But Lee didn't make him Jackson's replacement because he didn't think there was anyone near as good to command the cavalry. Had Stuart commanded that corps that day, do you think Lee would have needed to tell him to take that hill?

But then Lee too had a problem. He had a habit of putting vagueness into his orders, he often said things like "if practicable" which pretty much means "if you feel like it, that would be nice." He needed that hill, it was vital, but he did not order Hill "I want that hill, right now, go get it." He said "if practicable". And Hill minus one leg was not the fire eater he had been before his leg got blown off the year before. Lee gave him room to not carry out that attack, and he didn't do it.

Oh yeah, that stuff in the Gettyburg movie where Stuart gets chewed out for disobeying orders and leaving the army blind? Total BS. When Stuart left on his raid, he left a brigade of cavalry behind with each corps to do the scouting. And he went out and did just what his orders from Lee told him to do and started back when he was supposed to. The only mistake he made was in capturing a few hundred wagons full of supplies and taking them all back with him, which slowed him down a good bit, cost him a couple of days. But considering how hungry the Army of Northern Virginia was on any given day, you can hardly fault Stuart for keeping all those supplies and bringing them back to Lee along with all those badly needed wagons and even more badly needed horses instead of destroying them.

General Heath by the way, claimed he took his division to Gettyburg looking for shoes. Even though he knew very well that another Confederate division had passed through the town the day before and that there would be no shoes to be found. He went looking for a fight, what Lee had told him not to do.

The accusation that Stuart had left the army blind came from Longstreet, who blamed him in a letter for the defeat and retracted it when challenged on it. But the letter survived and the accusation has become one of history's errors.
Post Reply