> I don't care how terrible a president he was. I think winning the Civil War ought to carry an awful lot of weight.

Yeah, which is then blown by being one of the worst presidents ever. We already have Lincoln for the Civil War. Also, he was a drunk, and not in a cool way.

> Well, Jefferson's also got the nickel.

See my other post re: change that's worth less than quarters.

> And hey, if we're not going to consider their presidencies and instead use their outside accomplishments, then we'd better do the same for Grant!

But Jefferson ALSO has accomplishments as President. Bought the Louisiana Territory, showed them Barbary pirates whatfor, etc. And he wasn't a damned dirty drunk, neither. Plus writing the DoI is better than anything Grant did. Generals come and go, but there's only been one Jefferson.

> Hamilton certainly deserves his currency, what with keeping the Treasury's head above water after the war,

You, sir, sound like a damned New England Federalist! I'll bet you'd return us to the days of British rule, too. Okay, so maybe making Jefferson my idol colors my opinion of Hamilton.

> Oh, you said it here, too. FDR's got the dime. Better than the nothing that Madison's got.

About the same, really.

> I don't mind JFK on the 50 cent piece, in large part because of his cultural/symbolic significance (a la Franklin), and because he was one heck of a Cold Warrior.

I'll grant the cultural significance, but I sincerely question his Cold War achievments. We have:

1) The Bay of Pigs, which he botched. And which he ended up authorizing largely only because he needed some Cold War cred.
2) The Cuban Missle Crisis, which he gets an A+ on, but in large part because he got SUPER LUCKY. I mean, come on. He made a risky move with a lot of impartial and incorrect information and got lucky. I give him credit for having those balls of stell, but I think he gets a little too much credit.
3) Got us into Vietnam. Oops.

That's 1 for 3 in my book.

Stephen