OT: Our bills will be changing

[MADHAT1]

See, you're doing it again. "Human Rights" is a western concept that only came into use after WW2. If you want to see what I mean, please try to apply your principle to other historical figures and civilizations. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang the first Chin Emperor, the Maya and Aztec empires where human sacrifices were commonplace, and so forth. You better get busy, you have a lot of human history to go ahead and condemn.

Those like you mentioned are good examples of the lack of human rights in ancient times and there are some leaders of the modern era that can be use as examples that in places it doesn't or didn't exist in this century.
But according to this, a form of human rights existed in 539 B.C..
History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights
>In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<
http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html

Also in that article: >Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.<

 

[Doctor Worm]

That's not what he's saying at all. What he is saying is that when you look back at history it has to be judged within the context of the cultural assumptions of those times, not ours.

I largely agree. An example is Thomas Jefferson. A flawed man by today's standards to be sure, but one with enough heroic qualities and accomplishments to be considered great and to be honored as such.

Not so with Andrew Jackson. He was simply a bad president and a worse person. The nation is a better place with his removal from the currency. Harriet Tubman is an improvement. Han Solo would have been an improvement.

 

[BeKnighted]

Sorry you are off by about 450 years.

I think you missed the joke (and also a "d" when you typed it in the first place).

 

[BeKnighted]

See, you're doing it again. "Human Rights" is a western concept that only came into use after WW2. If you want to see what I mean, please try to apply your principle to other historical figures and civilizations. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang the first Chin Emperor, the Maya and Aztec empires where human sacrifices were commonplace, and so forth. You better get busy, you have a lot of human history to go ahead and condemn.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think they still teach this in most U.S. history classes.

 

[PhDKnight]

See, you're doing it again. "Human Rights" is a western concept that only came into use after WW2. If you want to see what I mean, please try to apply your principle to other historical figures and civilizations. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang the first Chin Emperor, the Maya and Aztec empires where human sacrifices were commonplace, and so forth. You better get busy, you have a lot of human history to go ahead and condemn.

You really believe that before WW2 no one contemplated human rights and dignity and the human condition? Are you sure about that? You think that before WW2 no one of any significance in world history wrote about or did anything with regard to this concept that affected the culture of their era or changed the course of human history?

 

[Upstream]

) and we've way overrepresented people born before 1800 (Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jackson, Franklin),

That's because the last major redesign of our money occurred in 1928, and you have to be dead to appear on money, That pretty much limited most of the choices to people who were born in the first half of 1800s or earlier. By the way, in 1928, Jackson replaced Cleveland on the $20. Cleveland replaced Washington, who replaced Hugh McCulloch. (I bet McCulloch falls in the category of people Bac has never heard of.)

 

[LevaosLectures]

You would not be here if not for the white man and powered wigs.

And the country would not be what it is today without the abolitionist movement. The country we live in today bears little resemblance to the country as it was founded, and that is a good thing. The dismantling of the slave power was for all intents and purposes a second revolution.

 

[e5fdny]

And the country would not be what it is today without the abolitionist movement. The country we live in today bears little resemblance to the country as it was founded, and that is a good thing. The dismantling of the slave power was for all intents and purposes a second revolution.

THERE WOULD BE NO USA TODAY IF NOT FOR YOUR BAD GUYS.

Again, and slower this time...slavery bad. We all agree on that. It's a great thing for our country (and the world) we have evolved on many issues as a nation over time. Shows how the noble experiment worked.

But to discount those (and their importance) who started to the whole thing is a little weird.

 

[strings74]

I'm just tickled pink knowing that all the outraged nuts in this thread will see Harriet Tubman every time they buy a new can of dip at the truck stop.

 

[RUhasarrived]

The bill that they really want is The Bill Of Rights.

 

[Metropolitans3]

Poor old Jefferson on the most useless pieces of currency, the nickel and the two dollar bill.

Maybe time for a do-over.

Get rid of pennies, nickels and quarters. Go to dimes and half dollars only and round everything off. The only reason we have pennies is because of the zinc lobby (look it up). So now you have two coins and six bills, 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50. (Did you know that Greta van Sustern said we should invent a $25 bill and put Tubman on that? And she has a TV show!)

So, that is eight people you can honour if you only want to put one person on a piece of currency. You have to put something on a coin on the obverse other than a person or else you won't have heads and tails anymore, and that would be a change I couldn't handle. But on the currency, you could put your high school yearbook page on the back (even freshman year when the pictures are small) and it would be OK.

So, to me, we've got eight primary choices to make.

I go for:

Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson
FDR

Easily our four greatest presidents. To me, a big drop off to the fifth.

That leaves four primary spots. Now I would leave the political scene behind and look to great Americans from other fields: science, the arts, sports, the humanities, etc.

My first pick is easy: Albert Einstein. He not only represents the pinnacle of scientific achievement, he was an immigrant who became a citizen of the US. The second is easy for me, too: Jackie Robinson. He transcended his sport in a fashion that was absolutely critical to our nation. Next I pick Emily Dickinson for the arts/humanities. One of the greatest poets ever and speaks to a quieter, yet passionate side of life.

Now I've got one more. Ben Franklin? Golda Meir? (she was an American citizen and a great world leader) Eleanor Roosevelt? Martin Luther King, Jr.? Harriet Tubman? Clara Barton? Cesar Chavez? Andrew Carnegie? Ernest Hemingway? Frank Lloyd Wright (jerk, but amazing architect) Willa Cather?

I'm torn between King and Barton. Might have to put in a twenty cent piece and go for both of them. Would put the rest on the back of the bills, maybe in pairs or something.

You have an extra spot for the $100 bill.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Poor old Jefferson on the most useless pieces of currency, the nickel and the two dollar bill.

Maybe time for a do-over.

Get rid of pennies, nickels and quarters. Go to dimes and half dollars only and round everything off. The only reason we have pennies is because of the zinc lobby (look it up). So now you have two coins and six bills, 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50. (Did you know that Greta van Sustern said we should invent a $25 bill and put Tubman on that? And she has a TV show!)

So, that is eight people you can honour if you only want to put one person on a piece of currency. You have to put something on a coin on the obverse other than a person or else you won't have heads and tails anymore, and that would be a change I couldn't handle. But on the currency, you could put your high school yearbook page on the back (even freshman year when the pictures are small) and it would be OK.

So, to me, we've got eight primary choices to make.

I go for:

Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson
FDR

Easily our four greatest presidents. To me, a big drop off to the fifth.

That leaves four primary spots. Now I would leave the political scene behind and look to great Americans from other fields: science, the arts, sports, the humanities, etc.

My first pick is easy: Albert Einstein. He not only represents the pinnacle of scientific achievement, he was an immigrant who became a citizen of the US. The second is easy for me, too: Jackie Robinson. He transcended his sport in a fashion that was absolutely critical to our nation. Next I pick Emily Dickinson for the arts/humanities. One of the greatest poets ever and speaks to a quieter, yet passionate side of life.

Now I've got one more. Ben Franklin? Golda Meir? (she was an American citizen and a great world leader) Eleanor Roosevelt? Martin Luther King, Jr.? Harriet Tubman? Clara Barton? Cesar Chavez? Andrew Carnegie? Ernest Hemingway? Frank Lloyd Wright (jerk, but amazing architect) Willa Cather?

I'm torn between King and Barton. Might have to put in a twenty cent piece and go for both of them. Would put the rest on the back of the bills, maybe in pairs or something.

Any list that doesn't include Hamilton is a stupid list. Congrats!

 

[BeKnighted]

That's because the last major redesign of our money occurred in 1928, and you have to be dead to appear on money, That pretty much limited most of the choices to people who were born in the first half of 1800s or earlier. By the way, in 1928, Jackson replaced Cleveland on the $20. Cleveland replaced Washington, who replaced Hugh McCulloch. (I bet McCulloch falls in the category of people Bac has never heard of.)

It says something that there hasn't been a major redesign in close to 90 years.

 

[IL Lusciato]

Bye bye Bloody Bloody. Most overrated President in our history. Putting aside his slave trading and ethnic cleansing, why was this guy honored by being pictured on paper money, given that he despised the very concept of paper money?

so with you. It made no sense to get rid of Hamilton, who was an advocate of the central bank/currency from the start. Jackson, I see no reason why we have him over other people. Tubman is a good person to have on the bill. Shows our rugged individualism, revolutionary spirit, huge cornerstone of our history for both women and African americans etc. The only person I would have liked to see more would be MLK.

 

[SkilletHead2]

You have an extra spot for the $100 bill.

Excellent. So I can use both of them.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Any list that doesn't include Hamilton is a stupid list. Congrats!

Would that be because of your support for a strong federal government, a national debt and taxes? Or turning our backs on our allies in the fight for freedom and cozying up to our oppressors?

Or did you mean some other Alexander Hamilton?

 

[DJ Spanky]

Or did you mean some other Alexander Hamilton?

I think he was referring to the one who was a Founding Father of the United States, chief staff aide to General George Washington, one of the most influential interpreters and promoters of the U.S. Constitution, the founder of the nation's financial system, the founder of the Federalist Party, the Father of the United States Coast Guard, the founder of The New York Post and the first Secretary of the Treasury. Ever hear of him?

 

[T2Kplus10]

Would that be because of your support for a strong federal government, a national debt and taxes? Or turning our backs on our allies in the fight for freedom and cozying up to our oppressors?

Or did you mean some other Alexander Hamilton?

The one that established our financial system and build the foundation of our economy. And the only founding father that was a true American story - born a bastard in poverty on a Caribbean island and became Washington's right hand during the Revolution at a very young age. And one of the few founders that transcended the times and was against slavery.

Don't you think that's better than a president that ordered the internment of American citizens and tried to take over another branch of the federal government?

You fell right into that one! :)

**Drop mic**

 

[LevaosLectures]

THERE WOULD BE NO USA TODAY IF NOT FOR YOUR BAD GUYS.

Again, and slower this time...slavery bad. We all agree on that. It's a great thing for our country (and the world) we have evolved on many issues as a nation over time. Shows how the noble experiment worked.

But to discount those (and their importance) who started to the whole thing is a little weird.

Christ, you must be borderline illiterate. I never called anyone a "bad guy, first of all. I talked about broadening the idea of what we consider to be a "hero" to include people besides presidents and war heroes. You keep hammering on the one point that the country wouldn't exist without old white guys. True, enough. But the country we live in today wouldn't exist without the brave people, including of course many white men, who remade the country into something better in the second American Revolution that was the destruction of the slave power, as well as the long fights of reconstruction and civil rights that followed. Hey, the antebellum USA wouldn't have existed without Raleigh, Walsingham and various other Eizabethan courtiers, so why even bother with Washington? Get it now? History doesn't end at Yorktown.

Second, Andrew Jackson isn't even a freaking founder. Nobody is talking about getting rid of George Washington.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

We've already forgotten the principles of the Founding Fathers, I guess we should now forget their names and contributions as well. Unreal.

For the record, Harriet Tubman is a terrific choice; great personal risk to accomplish a greater good. But, changing ONLY for political correctness doesn't sit well with me. MLK Jr. would be another great choice.

Andrew Jackson wasn't a founding father.

He was someone who hated the banking system/idea of paper money, ignored the supreme court, and instigated the trail of tears.
^These are facts.^
FACTS

Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.

I don't see any reason for him to be honored on our paper money.

 

[e5fdny]

Christ, you must be borderline illiterate. I never called anyone a "bad guy, first of all. I talked about broadening the idea of what we consider to be a "hero" to include people besides presidents and war heroes. You keep hammering on the one point that the country wouldn't exist without old white guys. True, enough. But the country we live in today wouldn't exist without the brave people, including of course many white men, who remade the country into something better in the second American Revolution that was the destruction of the slave power, as well as the long fights of reconstruction and civil rights that followed. Hey, the antebellum USA wouldn't have existed without Raleigh, Walsingham and various other Eizabethan courtiers, so why even bother with Washington? Get it now? History doesn't end at Yorktown.

Second, Andrew Jackson isn't even a freaking founder. Nobody is talking about getting rid of George Washington.

I will make it even simpler for you....there is no history if there was no Yorktown. That's all I'm saying. All the things you keep talking about while very important in who we are never come to be unless the old white guys in wigs and (more importantly) just the regular white guys do their part and get this thing we call the US of A going.

I also have never heard the Civil War called the second American Revolution before.

And I'm on board with adding people to our currency. The more color on our bills (figuratively and literally) the better.

 

[LevaosLectures]

I also have never heard the Civil War called the second American Revolution before.
.

Not only the civil war but reconstruction.

https://books.google.com/books?id=a3nX48n4oeIC&q=Second+American+Revolution+#v=onepage&q&f=true

 

[S.W.A.I.N]

I will make it even simpler for you....there is no history if there was no Yorktown. That's all I'm saying. All the things you keep talking about while very important in who we are never come to be unless the old white guys in wigs and (more importantly) just the regular white guys do their part and get this thing we call the US of A going.

I also have never heard the Civil War called the second American Revolution before.

And I'm on board with adding people to our currency. The more color on our bills (figuratively and literally) the better.

Without the Big Bang there is no history...equally salient point...

 

[SkilletHead2]

I think he was referring to the one who was a Founding Father of the United States, chief staff aide to General George Washington, one of the most influential interpreters and promoters of the U.S. Constitution, the founder of the nation's financial system, the founder of the Federalist Party, the Father of the United States Coast Guard, the founder of The New York Post and the first Secretary of the Treasury. Ever hear of him?

Spank, if you are just going to lift stuff word for word from wikipedia, at least credit them.

 

[SkilletHead2]

The one that established our financial system and build the foundation of our economy. And the only founding father that was a true American story - born a bastard in poverty on a Caribbean island and became Washington's right hand during the Revolution at a very young age. And one of the few founders that transcended the times and was against slavery.

Don't you think that's better than a president that ordered the internment of American citizens and tried to take over another branch of the federal government?

You fell right into that one! :)

**Drop mic**

Yeah, right. Hamilton had many good qualities and accomplishments. He was for a strong central government, taxation to accomplish national goals, accumulation of state debt to the federal government, and on and on. And indeed, he came from humble roots. But if you actually read up on Hamilton, from a variety of sources, his story is less brilliant than is currently in vogue, and contains a fair number of warts as well. He was a climber and a conniver of the first order, which led him to dance around duals on more than one occasion, and led him to be duped into an affair and blackmail. As for transcending the times, again, you really need to do some reading. He married into a wealthy, slave-owning family in order to further his personal ambition, and conducted business in the slave trade for his in-laws. He wanted a strong America and a prosperous and influential Alexander Hamilton.

By the time of his untimely death his star was no longer in ascendancy. He was pretty much spent. One of the founding fathers for sure, but far lesser than the leading lights. If you want someone from that era to admire who wasn't a President, you'd be far better off with Benjamin Franklin.

As to FDR, the internment of the Japanese in WWII is his huge black mark. His court-packing scheme actually had some good provisions in it, although it was a bald-faced attempt at controlling a court that voted against him too often, in his opinion, and it was good that it was defeated. On the other hand, his accomplishments and contributions to the nation in a time of crisis were massive, and he rightly and easily ranks with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln as one of the very best presidents, often being named #1 by presidential scholars. Hamilton pales in comparison to any of these four men.

 

[RU4Real]

Yeah, right. Hamilton had many good qualities and accomplishments. He was for a strong central government, taxation to accomplish national goals, accumulation of state debt to the federal government, and on and on. And indeed, he came from humble roots. But if you actually read up on Hamilton, from a variety of sources, his story is less brilliant than is currently in vogue, and contains a fair number of warts as well. He was a climber and a conniver of the first order, which led him to dance around duals on more than one occasion, and led him to be duped into an affair and blackmail. As for transcending the times, again, you really need to do some reading. He married into a wealthy, slave-owning family in order to further his personal ambition, and conducted business in the slave trade for his in-laws. He wanted a strong America and a prosperous and influential Alexander Hamilton.

By the time of his untimely death his star was no longer in ascendancy. He was pretty much spent. One of the founding fathers for sure, but far lesser than the leading lights. If you want someone from that era to admire who wasn't a President, you'd be far better off with Benjamin Franklin.

He also initiated the feud with Aaron Burr, which became so bitter that Burr was forced to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[RUckusbuck]

And, which of the above is not like the other? I understand that Harriet Tubman was a great American and I'm not trying to diminish her legacy, but does she really belong among that list?

She stands out because she is above them.

 

[jerot]

Jackson was a 13-year-old soldier when he was captured by the British during the American Revolution; he is the only former prisoner of war ever to become president.
Not in Hillary's class, but who is?

 

[SkilletHead2]

Jackson was a 13-year-old soldier when he was captured by the British during the American Revolution; he is the only former prisoner of war ever to become president.
Not in Hillary's class, but who is?

Equally likely to have come under fire on a tarmac.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Yeah, right. Hamilton had many good qualities and accomplishments. He was for a strong central government, taxation to accomplish national goals, accumulation of state debt to the federal government, and on and on. And indeed, he came from humble roots. But if you actually read up on Hamilton, from a variety of sources, his story is less brilliant than is currently in vogue, and contains a fair number of warts as well. He was a climber and a conniver of the first order, which led him to dance around duals on more than one occasion, and led him to be duped into an affair and blackmail. As for transcending the times, again, you really need to do some reading. He married into a wealthy, slave-owning family in order to further his personal ambition, and conducted business in the slave trade for his in-laws. He wanted a strong America and a prosperous and influential Alexander Hamilton.

By the time of his untimely death his star was no longer in ascendancy. He was pretty much spent. One of the founding fathers for sure, but far lesser than the leading lights. If you want someone from that era to admire who wasn't a President, you'd be far better off with Benjamin Franklin.

As to FDR, the internment of the Japanese in WWII is his huge black mark. His court-packing scheme actually had some good provisions in it, although it was a bald-faced attempt at controlling a court that voted against him too often, in his opinion, and it was good that it was defeated. On the other hand, his accomplishments and contributions to the nation in a time of crisis were massive, and he rightly and easily ranks with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln as one of the very best presidents, often being named #1 by presidential scholars. Hamilton pales in comparison to any of these four men.

Oh Skillet, please stick to education, history is not your strong suit. Good grief.

Do you have any idea what a "strong central government" meant back then? Something that actually functioned. And that is bad? He opposed slavery and was very advanced with his belief of racial equality for back then, once again transcending the times. As for "good qualities" just read what Washington believed and thought of him. Nuff said. Going from poverty in the West Indies to a founding father of our nation doesn't happen without aggressive climbing and breaking eggs, and I'm cool with that. Go read some more about him and what he did for our economy. It's likely our nation wouldn't have survived that long without his financial leadership. Not good enough? Once again, any list without him on it is stupid.

It's pretty funny that you overlook the two FDR atrocities (both probably the biggest in the 20th century) but whine about who Hamilton married.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Spank, if you are just going to lift stuff word for word from wikipedia, at least credit them.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that that makes it less applicable to the circumstances.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Oh Skillet, please stick to education, history is not your strong suit. Good grief.

Do you have any idea what a "strong central government" meant back then? Something that actually functioned. And that is bad? He opposed slavery and was very advanced with his belief of racial equality for back then, once again transcending the times. As for "good qualities" just read what Washington believed and thought of him. Nuff said. Going from poverty in the West Indies to a founding father of our nation doesn't happen without aggressive climbing and breaking eggs, and I'm cool with that. Go read some more about him and what he did for our economy. It's likely our nation wouldn't have survived that long without his financial leadership. Not good enough? Once again, any list without him on it is stupid.

It's pretty funny that you overlook the two FDR atrocities (both probably the biggest in the 20th century) but whine about who Hamilton married.

It's great to see that your biases never get in the way of reality, T. Hamilton's marriage for money, and his subsequent engagement in slave trading was simply pointed out in response to your blind hagiography. I like Hamilton. All of our "heroes" have flaws. You have to take the bad with the good. Hamilton was a major player back in the day. But if you promote Washington's opinion of him to make your case, your case has already failed, because it is Washington you are comparing him to. He was a great man in sum, but nowhere near his contemporaries Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin. A step down. Simple as that. If you are going to pick somebody from that time who never led the country, you have to go for real genius, and that would be Franklin. And then you're done with that era. And he simply doesn't hold up to Lincoln or Roosevelt. They were giants who deftly led the nation through periods of great peril. Hamilton did not. Cabinet post was the highest he ever got. Next rank down.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that that makes it less applicable to the circumstances.

It's fun to watch Skillet flop around like a fish out of water. FDR over Hamilton, so stupid.
[roll]

 

[SkilletHead2]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that that makes it less applicable to the circumstances.

It's perfectly applicable, but only fair to let folks know it's just a cut and paste from wikipedia. Hell, we all use sources.

 

[T2Kplus10]

It's great to see that your biases never get in the way of reality, T. Hamilton's marriage for money, and his subsequent engagement in slave trading was simply pointed out in response to your blind hagiography. I like Hamilton. All of our "heroes" have flaws. You have to take the bad with the good. Hamilton was a major player back in the day. But if you promote Washington's opinion of him to make your case, your case has already failed, because it is Washington you are comparing him to. He was a great man in sum, but nowhere near his contemporaries Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin. A step down. Simple as that. If you are going to pick somebody from that time who never led the country, you have to go for real genius, and that would be Franklin. And then you're done with that era. And he simply doesn't hold up to Lincoln or Roosevelt. They were giants who deftly led the nation through periods of great peril. Hamilton did not. Cabinet post was the highest he ever got. Next rank down.

Roosevelt is crap compared to Hamilton and not even close to Roosevelt #1. Nobody comes close to Washington and Lincoln. But I would put Hamilton up against Jefferson any day of the week. And I haven't even mentioned his influence on the constitution itself.

 

[SkilletHead2]

It's fun to watch Skillet flop around like a fish out of water. FDR over Hamilton, so stupid.
[roll]

This shouldn't be difficult, T, even for you. FDR is uniformly considered to be one of the top four presidents, and often as not, first or second. Hamilton, on the other hand, was probably about the fifth or sixth most important of the founding fathers, easily behind Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. Legendary hero compared to a good contributor. You've got yourself out on the limb; keep sawing.

 

[Source]

Hey, is this the time where I can jump in and can tell you that Alexander Hamilton's third child was Alexander Hamilton, Jr. who was a captain during the War of 1812? Jr. was mugged in broad daylight at the New Brunswick train station a few years before he died in 1875.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Jackson was a 13-year-old soldier when he was captured by the British during the American Revolution; he is the only former prisoner of war ever to become president.
Not in Hillary's class, but who is?

He's a 13 year old war hero because he was captured. I like 13 year olds that weren't captured. OK?

 

[Source]

He's a 13 year old war hero because he was captured. I like 13 year olds that weren't captured. OK?

The Revolutionary War was HUUUUUUUUUUGE.

 

[e5fdny]

Not only the civil war but reconstruction.

https://books.google.com/books?id=a3nX48n4oeIC&q=Second+American+Revolution+#v=onepage&q&f=true

If the quote came from "The Killer Angels" I would have given you an extra point. ;)

When possible we always try to quote the Rutgers guy.