The political Left's desire to have a female's visage printed on the front of U.S. currency has its defender in The Motley Monk. Yes, it would be good to have a female's visage placed on the front of U.S. currency. There should be no argument here. The relevant question is "Whose visage?"
Let's lay down one principle in this argument: The female visage selected should have, at a minumum, the kind of historical/cultural stature accorded those males whose visages are currently placed on the front of U.S. curency.
In its clamoring to "get 'r done," the political Left once again has failed to do its homework and gather the relevant facts. And, they embarrass themselves as they celebrate the U.S. Treasury Department's decision to remove Alexander Hamilton's visage from the $10 bill.
Let's lay down one principle in this argument: The female visage selected should have, at a minumum, the kind of historical/cultural stature accorded those males whose visages are currently placed on the front of U.S. curency.
In its clamoring to "get 'r done," the political Left once again has failed to do its homework and gather the relevant facts. And, they embarrass themselves as they celebrate the U.S. Treasury Department's decision to remove Alexander Hamilton's visage from the $10 bill.
Care of John Mauldin over at "Thoughts from the Frontline":
In Defense of Alexander Hamilton
Just a quick note on the plan to remove Alexander Hamilton
from our currency. I am despondent, if not outraged, over this
decision. Hamilton was arguably one of the most important of
our founding fathers. He wrote almost two thirds of The
Federalist Papers, which were the basis for our Constitution.
He was instrumental in the achievement George Washington's
most important policies and in establishing a sound system for
our government. He would have been president if he had not
been killed in a duel. (I was in a museum last year here in New
York that is part of the JP Morgan Chase collection and that has
the actual pistols used in the duel.)
To choose to remove Jackson and leave Grant (who at one
time owned slaves and who ran one of the most corrupt
administrations in American history) or the populist Jackson
(who was an avowed slave owner) is simply staggering.
Granted, Hamilton is not a favorite among the liberal left, but
to now denigrate his importance in favor of the other gentlemen
mentioned above is an affront. Not that they were not also great
Americans, but they simply weren’t in Hamilton’s league. This
is the crassest of politics. I should note that even Ben Bernanke
agrees with me, as well as many others who would not normally
align with my views. I don’t know if this move can be changed,
but it should be.
Yet once again, those on the political Left have shown their hand. Instead of doing some careful investigation, they ran with whatever they could as fast as they could to advance their cause. They're so eager to achieve victory in this battle that they're willing to keep male visages of highly questionable characters on other bills, all fueled by their lust to put a female visage...on a $10 bill.
Until he read Mauldin, The Motley Monk thought the political Left had erred in selling the nation's females out for a $10 bill. Why not the $50 or $100 bill? Thank goodness John Mauldin did his homework.
Let the discussion begin...
To read John Mauldin's "Thoughts from the Frontline," click on the following link:
http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/150627_TFTF.pdf
In Defense of Alexander Hamilton
Just a quick note on the plan to remove Alexander Hamilton
from our currency. I am despondent, if not outraged, over this
decision. Hamilton was arguably one of the most important of
our founding fathers. He wrote almost two thirds of The
Federalist Papers, which were the basis for our Constitution.
He was instrumental in the achievement George Washington's
most important policies and in establishing a sound system for
our government. He would have been president if he had not
been killed in a duel. (I was in a museum last year here in New
York that is part of the JP Morgan Chase collection and that has
the actual pistols used in the duel.)
To choose to remove Jackson and leave Grant (who at one
time owned slaves and who ran one of the most corrupt
administrations in American history) or the populist Jackson
(who was an avowed slave owner) is simply staggering.
Granted, Hamilton is not a favorite among the liberal left, but
to now denigrate his importance in favor of the other gentlemen
mentioned above is an affront. Not that they were not also great
Americans, but they simply weren’t in Hamilton’s league. This
is the crassest of politics. I should note that even Ben Bernanke
agrees with me, as well as many others who would not normally
align with my views. I don’t know if this move can be changed,
but it should be.
Yet once again, those on the political Left have shown their hand. Instead of doing some careful investigation, they ran with whatever they could as fast as they could to advance their cause. They're so eager to achieve victory in this battle that they're willing to keep male visages of highly questionable characters on other bills, all fueled by their lust to put a female visage...on a $10 bill.
Until he read Mauldin, The Motley Monk thought the political Left had erred in selling the nation's females out for a $10 bill. Why not the $50 or $100 bill? Thank goodness John Mauldin did his homework.
Let the discussion begin...
To read John Mauldin's "Thoughts from the Frontline," click on the following link:
http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/150627_TFTF.pdf
RSS Feed
