What non-presidents would you put on United States currency?

[A18]

Should be interesting.

[ATFFL]

Me!

It would lead to much greater savings. 

Really, how many of you want me in your pocket?

[Cashcow]

Keep Hamilton and Franklin, maybe add Daniel Webster or Henry Clay - someone like that.

[riceowl]

Sam Houston

[Richard]

The smartest American that ever lived: Nicolai Tesla.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Henry Clay and John Marshall are obvious choices, as I’ve already mentioned in another recent thread.  Alfred Thayer Mahan is an inobvious but good choice.

[Wakie]

I wouldn't mind seeing any of these ...

Frederick Douglas
John Marshall
Jonas Salk

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Eugene Debs

[Vincent]

Thomas Edison

[John Dibble]

Thomas Edison

[A18]

Put Andrew Mellon on the $20.

[Jake]

Henry Clay

[Emsworth]

Daniel Webster
John Calhoun
Henry Clay
John Marshall

[Blue Rectangle]

Henry Clay

[Speed of Sound]

Cap'n Crunch!

[PBrunsel]

Charles Evan Hughes

Governeur Morris

John Foster Dulles

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

$5 - John Winthrop
$10 - George Washington (yes he's a president, but as long as we have people on our money he needs to be on it)
$20 - Lewis and Clark
$50 -  Robert E. Lee
$100 - Sitting Bull
$200 - Fiorello LaGuardia
$500 - Martin Luther King

[Virginian87]

I half-expected the Republicans to say Ronald Reagan as a top choice, as naming everything after him has been in vogue recently.  Good job, guys.  You proved me wrong.  I agree with PBrunsel that Hughes would be a good person to put on currency, but I also advocate James Madison, John Jay, Henry Clay, James K. Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (though this one might be controversial), and Harry Truman.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're correct that Wilson would be controversial, Virginian87.  He was without a doubt the worst President we've had.  He's so bad that given a choice and one single 20th century politicial figure that I could take a time machine and kidnap as a baby and bring to the prsent day, it would be him as I am firmly convinced that without Wilson neither Hitler nor Stalin could have come to power.

[Virginian87]

You're correct that Wilson would be controversial, Virginian87.  He was without a doubt the worst President we've had.  He's so bad that given a choice and one single 20th century politicial figure that I could take a time machine and kidnap as a baby and bring to the prsent day, it would be him as I am firmly convinced that without Wilson neither Hitler nor Stalin could have come to power.

How is he that bad?  I'm the only one it seems who defends him.  I think you mean that without the Republican and isolationist opposition to the Wilson's League of Nations those dictators never would have come to power.  But without Wilson's presidency, the Federal Reserve as we know it would not exist, senators would not be elected by the people but by the state legislatures, and women would not be voting today.  You might be mad at him if you don't like the establishment of an income tax though.

[nini2287]

Most of the people I could think of have been mentioned (Franklin, Clay, Hamilton, Webster).  I would also suggest maybe an explorer such as Lewis, Clark or Daniel Boone.

[Cashcow]

I half-expected the Republicans to say Ronald Reagan as a top choice, as naming everything after him has been in vogue recently.  Good job, guys.  You proved me wrong.  I agree with PBrunsel that Hughes would be a good person to put on currency, but I also advocate James Madison, John Jay, Henry Clay, James K. Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (though this one might be controversial), and Harry Truman.

Non-Presidents

[??????????]

You're correct that Wilson would be controversial, Virginian87.  He was without a doubt the worst President we've had.  He's so bad that given a choice and one single 20th century politicial figure that I could take a time machine and kidnap as a baby and bring to the prsent day, it would be him as I am firmly convinced that without Wilson neither Hitler nor Stalin could have come to power.

How is he that bad?  I'm the only one it seems who defends him.  I think you mean that without the Republican and isolationist opposition to the Wilson's League of Nations those dictators never would have come to power.  But without Wilson's presidency, the Federal Reserve as we know it would not exist, senators would not be elected by the people but by the state legislatures, and women would not be voting today.  You might be mad at him if you don't like the establishment of an income tax though.

With the exception of women voting all of those things were horrible to change.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're correct that Wilson would be controversial, Virginian87.  He was without a doubt the worst President we've had.  He's so bad that given a choice and one single 20th century politicial figure that I could take a time machine and kidnap as a baby and bring to the prsent day, it would be him as I am firmly convinced that without Wilson neither Hitler nor Stalin could have come to power.

How is he that bad?  I'm the only one it seems who defends him.  I think you mean that without the Republican and isolationist opposition to the Wilson's League of Nations those dictators never would have come to power.  But without Wilson's presidency, the Federal Reserve as we know it would not exist, senators would not be elected by the people but by the state legislatures, and women would not be voting today.  You might be mad at him if you don't like the establishment of an income tax though.

The bad idea that was the 19th Amendment would have passed anyway.  By the early 20th century many States were doing with Senators as they do with presidential Electors today, letting the people decide, and the rest followed the party split of their State legislatures.  (Irrelevant question, had Senators been directly elected in 1858, would Senator Lincoln been able to gain the Presidential nomination in 1860?)  Wilson was opposed to women's sufferage. Income tax and a central bank were bound to happen sooner or later

However, Wilson stoked the fires of nationalism (which really didn't need further stoking) and his policies caused The Great War to last longer than it should have.  Either early entry (on either side) or a real neutrality instead of his sham neutrality would have ended the war much quicker.  Wilson followed a deliberate and callous policy of following policies designed to make the war last longer so that the warring sides would have no choice but to turn to him to settle their dispute.  His Anglo-centric viewpoint also caused the Germans to feel that risking war with America was better than letting Wilson dictate peace terms.  It's hard to imagine how anyone could have done a worse job than Wilson did in setting the stage for the horrors of WW2, Stalinism, and Naziism, any one of whch would have been bad enough.

[John Dibble]

Michael Moore.

God no...please...just...no.