Replacement Of People On Our Coins

Not me I like what we got ...if you put em on any coins I think they should be on commemorative coins. Just my opinion.

I am of the belief we should remove people from the coins and go back to symbology.

It is going to be difficult for the U.S. Mint to replace traditional effigies on the coins, without a lot of controversy. The U.S. Public in my opinion, are a bit too traditional and conservative to accept otherwise.
Most Americans are as proud of their Country as they are of their coinage. Tradition is strong.

If effigies do change, allegorical figures will have to be used, not real persons (other than those now depicted). That is why Liberty and Eagles so often appear.

Allegorical figures of Trade, Science, Industry, Defence, Agriculture, Art, etc., could be used on definitive coinage, but the artistic level would have to be extremely high. They would most probably have to reflect the Neo Classic nature of America's classic coins. That would be a bit of a bind to those who would like to see art to be more progressive, and in so doing, others would object.

The artistic scope for NCLT and commemorative issued coinage is much wider.

Good point jbuck. But I think the people on our coins now COMPLETELY deserve to be on there for as long as time allows.

If we were to have a comprehensive reform of the coinage, I would like to see a return to the impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word Liberty, and the year of the coinage ; and upon the reverse... the figure or representation of an eagle, with this inscription, "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", according to the Act of April 2, 1792.

Since 1909 we have allowed certain specific people to represent Liberty, because of their historical roles ; Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, first of all, then Washington, who not only fought for independence but resigned his commission when the war was over ; but I for one would prefer a return to the allegories. Gasparro tried to do that with the small-size dollar, but instead we got a portrait which looks like it would bite your thumb off. And, as Ron Landis complained to me, then we got Sacagawea, who could (wrap your head around this) reasonably be called a slave!

Maybe so, but there are most definitely others who are just as deserving. Adams (both John and Samuel), Franklin (one can argue he was and still is more deserving than Kennedy), Hancock, Madison, Monroe, Paine, and more. We have a lot of great people, but only so many denominations and no easy way to decide the greatest. Sure, we can just continue with the status quo, but this topic is about replacement.

At least then your coinage designs would change every so often! (currently using the fourth portrait of Elizabeth II since 1953: there are six total that I've seen)

The line of Canadian bank-notes from the reign of George VI are worth mentioning in this context. Each had an "allegory" for something related to the Canadian economy, drawn up like ornate Greek gods. This ranged from "Security" (a woman holding a baby) on the denomination that needed it most ($1,000) to "Radio Broadcasting" (If I remember right, a handsome shirtless Mercury-ish guy speaking into a microphone) on the $50. There was also Electricity, Trade, etc... I'm sure this could at least be expanded into a line of different facets of Liberty/freedom on American coinage (but only the wholesome ones that don't make people angry on the Internet). They could even be related to the deeds of the president who used to be featured on that denomination, with the exception of the Native American dollar series (which I really like, and which don't feature presidents anyway).

I agree with skyshark124. Liberty designs would make us look less like imperialists.