Why isn't John Adams on money?

Factual Questions
1

I just finished watching the John Adams mini-series on DVD.

Adams was portrayed as a stubborn, argumentative guy, but he was clearly instrumental in the Revolution:

He urged the Continental Congress to vote for independence in the first place and then helped Jefferson write the Declaration. He was ambassador of various sorts to France, Britain, Holland, and Prussia during and after the war. He then returned to serve two terms as vice-president (which, back then, meant that he received the second most amount of votes) and then won the presidency himself.

In the mini-series, and in the musical 1776 – which I understand are both works of fiction – he is portrayed as one of the country’s great statesmen, political minds, and Founding Fathers.

So why isn’t he on any money?

Washington gets both the quarter and the dollar; Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury but never president or VP, is on the ten. Jefferson got the now-forgotten $2 bill along with the nickel. Franklin got the $100. He could have had either the penny or the $5 bill before Lincoln came along, but the former had an eagle and then an Indian, and the latter had first Hamilton (again!) and then Jackson…as if the government was specifically excluding Adams.

What gives? Was it because Adams was so disliked during his presidency? Half of his party, and all of Jefferson’s party, hated Hamilton, but he got himself on two bills, one of which stuck. Was it he because he only served one term? Everybody on money that I can think of, except JFK, was elected to a second term.

Why do you think Adams never got the honor he deserved? Or do people still think he doesn’t deserve it?

2
3

He wasn’t well liked during his time; he was only a one term president; and I believe the Alien and Sedition act has caused him bad press for well over 200 years.

Personally, I think he should be honored in some way, but there are only a finite number of coins/bills, and removing someone from a coin/bill would probably be a huge waste of taxpayer money to debate who goes and who gets to replace them.

George Washington deserves a coin and bill. He sacrificed more than any single person to first head the Continental Army and then serve 8 years as the first president.

Lincoln also deserves a coin and bill. Being president during the nation’s civil war was not an easy gig. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t hurt either.

I think the only guy that might get punted is Hamilton. Few people know who he was (this board is not the group I’m thinking of), he was never a president, and he also had some interesting ideas about how the country should move forward. He also lost a duel to Aaron Burr. Loser.

4

Whoa! The $500 bill!

5

Yeah, Duckster, I know about those.

But every president gets a dollar coin, and being one of fifty faces on the back of the never-used $2 bill doesn’t quite match what I think Adams deserves.

6

If they’re going to punt anyone from a bill, it should be Grant. What did he do to deserve the $50 bill? Crédit Mobilier scandal? Panic of 1873? Alcoholism? Come on, we can do better than him.

Also, anyone else think it’s time they issued a $200 bill?

7

John Adams is NOT on the 2 bill, Jefferson is. Unless you want to count on the artwork on the back which is a group shot. And I really don't consider that anybody would count that, one makes the assumption that to say someones face is on the X bill one means on the front, where it is the only fence. And every president got on a coin, which was basically a legal tender commemerative that is about as commemorative as an elvis plate.

8

Grant won the Civil War which made Lincoln the greatest POTUS instead of the worst. Saying he was an alcoholic is a bit exaggerated although he did have episodes of binge drinking when he was bored.

9

Adams gets the raw deal in part because he is one of many great actors in the American Revolution. One could argue that Washington and Franklin are deserving of their honors. Hamilton probably gets the nod over Adams because he basically founded the American financial system. (What better way to honor that then put him on the money?) Adams was (IMO) more important than Jefferson but Jefferson was much more eloquent, making him the more romantic choice. Lincoln, Jackson, and FDR make sense as they represent other influential areas in American history. Adams’ achievements were more subtle than those of previously mentioned.

Grant is the curious one, though. No doubt he is an important figure in American history but he was an awful president. Surely Adams would rank above him.

10

Except that BEP makes it clear that President Grant is on the bill, not General Grant. Don’t forget Grant also had the only cabinet member impeached.

11

You mean this isn’t real???

12

As well they should have. The man was a menace to freedom.

13

I don’t know. Grant’s presidency had its problems but many of them were not of Grant’s making (except that he should have controlled his subordinates better). The Credit Mobilier scandal actually began in the Lincoln administration, yet this gets counted against Grant by lots of people unwilling to let anything stain Lincoln’s memory.

Grant was tremendously forward thinking on the subject of race relations, signing the first Civil Rights Act (1875) and working to improve Native American relations. He was vicious in his pursuit of the Klan, even breaking them up entirely in several states - they would only regroup after Reconstruction was forced to an end by Democratic gains and Republican defections in the 1870s.

His foreign policy was moderate - and led to far better relations with Britain by settling war claims left over from the Civil War through arbitration.

So a mixed legacy, sure, but there were some notable successes there. On balance he wasn’t a horrible president.

14

Hamilton:

[ul]
[li]First Secretary of the Treasury[/li][li]Proposed the Founding of the First US Bank to Congress in 1790[/li][li]The US Coinage Act was based on Hamilton’s Proposals, and this included the establishment of the US Mint[/li][/ul]

So, Hamilton is basically reponsible for all coinage, banking, and minting in the US. I think it would be a little odd for him to not be on currency.

http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/coinage-act

15

I totally disagree. He, along with Madison, is most responsible for our current form of government. The Alien and Sedition act is definitely a blight on his record but none of that generation is free of one (slavery, anyone?)

16

Not during his era. Grant was very highly thought of during and right after his presidency.

Jackson was also generally more highly thought of during his era than he is now.

One might also wonder about Madison and Monroe, to round out the “founding father” presidents. Madison was on the $5000 bill, but extremely high denomination bills were something of a dubious honor - people weren’t going to see those on a daily basis.

17

I think that’s exactly what the linked text says.

18

Salmon P. Chase is a logical choice for similar reasons - the national banking system, and paper currency. Most recently appeared on the $10,000. The first federal currency was designed by him during his tenure as Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, and some of those early bills wound up with Salmon on them. Later designers probably thought something was fishy about that …

19

Ouch.

20

But more to the point, Hamilton was intimately involved in the currency and banking of the nation in addition to being:

[ul]
[li]General Washington’s chief of staff during the revolutionary war after having fought in several battles in the northeast[/li][li]a member of the Continental Congress[/li][li]a framer of and signatory to the Constitution[/li][li]the founder of a political party[/li][li]the author of the Federalist Papers (along with Jay and Madison, although Hamilton wrote about half himself)[/li][/ul]

So, Hamilton was a primal force in banking and currency in the US addition to being a founding father, so I think his claim to a place on our currency is unique in its strength.

YMMV

ETA: not that Chase wasn’t an important political figure in his own right, but it’s not quite on the same level