The US 10 Dollar

[/]

I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit and animals on it.

Same here. People money just seems strangely imperialistic. Particularly when a disproportionate amount of western coinage has weird Ceasaresque sideways profiles of disembodied heads.
No reason an eagle can't be a lady, a rose can even be both! Stars are cool too, but I'm sure some fundamentalists would be quick to point out OMG PENTAGRAMS IN CIRCLES!

If it has to be a person, I'd prefer someone whose legacy contributes more to the cultural or technological aspects, since that's the sort of things lasts long after death.
Louisa May Alcott: Classic author, feminist, abolitionist, and army nurse.
Helen Keller: First deafblind person to get a bachelor of arts; author, political activist, and lecturer.
Gertrude B. Elion: Nobel Prize winning biochemist that invented the first leukemia treatment, the first immuno-suppressive agent, Allopurinol, Pyrimethamine, Trimethoprim, Acyclovir, and Nelarabine.

I'd say any of the above are deserving, but the point should be "deserving". Having a token for the sake of tokenism really isn't an honor.

[tzor]

Cuba had slavery, as did many countries around the world. If the war was about slavery, why didn't the United States attack Cuba, or Brazil or Ethiopia or ...

Because they were not a part of the Union. Slavery (the preservation of it and the restoration of the international slave trade) was the root cause of secession by the Fire Eaters. The Lincoln administration fought to keep that secession from taking full effect.

Remember, once the war started, the south treated this as the second war of independence, even though it was impossibly difficult to compare Lincoln to King George. More over, that's not how enlightenment thinking worked. The argument only works against a non elected despot, not an elected one.

(This is also how the issue moved from slavery to the question of taxation in the literature of the south during the war, as it was a desire to recreate the original revolutionary war down to the various reasons for doing so in the first place.)

The war (from the northern side) was never about abolishing slavery but preserving the Union. One could argue that had the Fire Eaters kept their mouth shut, they might have seen a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the federal government from deciding the matter for the current slave owning states. Lincoln's objection to slaves in the western territories / states wasn't that he didn't want slaves ... he didn't want them at all, slave or free in the west and as "property" they could be brought into those lands in opposition to laws which would have kept them out whether slave or free.

[mrswdk]

Remember, once the war started, the south treated this as the second war of independence, even though it was impossibly difficult to compare Lincoln to King George.

Right. Lincoln was far more of a tyrant than King George ever was.

[tzor]

Right. Lincoln was far more of a tyrant than King George ever was.

That could be debated, but if he was a tyrant, it was to the people in the Northern States.

Lincoln wasn't even sworn in as president when the states started seceding (South Carolina - December 20, 1860). On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. At least King George was actually doing things to annoy people (although on the other side he often did give in under pressure).