U. S. Grant

A person wrote this in a local newspaper:

US Grant does not deserve this dishonor

In Our Opinion: Hogwash!

Where is Ed Bearss when you need him?( I don't know who he is)

The profound, vividly descriptive speaker and Civil War historian would be a wonderful front man to put down this coup of Southern lawmakers who want to take our beloved Ulysses S. Grant off the $50 bill.

This Southern uprising needs to be put down in dramatic style. There are no shams in the Land of Grant. We know perfectly well the strengths and weaknesses of our beloved president and Civil War General. Grant served his country with great honor during one of the most perilous times in history. We really don't want to put down President Reagan.

He was a marvelous man, but there are many who do not agree that his "historical significance" qualifies him to get his face on a $50 bill. Congressman Patrick McHenry, R-NC, put the legislation forward, H.R. 4705, that would redesign the face of the $50 bill to include the likeness of 40th President Ronald Reagan. "Every generation needs its own heroes," congressman McHenry told one news outlet. "One decade into the 21st century, it's time to honor the last great president of the 20th century and give President Reagan a place beside Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy."

Many presidents are worthy of recognition. You see their names on federal and state buildings. For example, Reagan's name is on an airport and on a Cincinnati highway.

Replacing Grant disgraces the honor, service, and years of his life that he dedicated to preserving and fighting for his country. After the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, Grant became the most recognized person associated with the North's victory in the Civil War. Grant also led reconciliation - on the North's terms ­- during his presidency.

There are other options for replacement. Why is Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill and on the nickel also? Some will argue strongly that, after all, he did write the Declaration of Independence and that deserves heaps of adoration above all others.That seems like an obvious place for change. Reagan would look good on a $2 bill. There are plenty of other options, so we have to wonder why Grant? Why now?

William McKinley is on a $500 bill and Grover Cleveland on the $1,000 bill. Neither one of these presidents compare well to Grant. How would they fare compared to Reagan? But, how many $1,000 bills have you seen in your lifetime?

Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008. In Thursday's op-ed piece he wrote: "To honor Reagan's genuine achievements by downgrading those of Grant would deepen our chronic historical amnesia about the Civil War and Reconstruction, the central events of the first 250 years of American history, and their legacy of nationalism, freedom and equal rights.

It's hard to imagine that Ronald Reagan, whose modesty was part of his charm, would have approved of such a disgraceful act toward another president."In reality, it all comes down to what history book you are reading. In our book, Grant deserves to remain on the $50 bill. Our representatives need to move quickly to quash this uprising and keep Grant where he belongs.

I totally agree. People are messing with sacred tradition too much to fit today's immoral standards. How about jobs, stupid? If this keeps up no one will see a $50 bill or it will become the value of today's dollar. Neither one is acceptable.

I have a good friend who is a descendant of U. S. Grant. He carries the Grant history very well and it is a good one, a troubled one like all of us but a good one. I would rather have that name on that bill than any other.

In God I trust,

Ed Winkle