Blog #124 – Rethinking History or Should Andrew Jackson still be on the $20?
In the past few years, students and adults have pushed to change the names of schools and institutions based upon the namesake’s past history. Back in 2015, for instance, the Confederate flag was pulled down from the South Carolina capitol in the wake of the Charleston shootings (the shooter was pictured w/ Confederate memorabilia), and then the South Carolina legislature voted overwhelmingly to take the flag down. This Economist article examines other particular cases not mentioned in the “Rethinking History”. From another point of view, this article defends leaving the Hoover FBI federal building as it is, though some have come to question Hoover’s tough-minded, illegal wiretappings of students and Dr. King (Cointelpro). Since the Charleston church shooting, there has been a concerted effort to begin the controversial process of taking down statues to leaders of the Confederacy throughout the South.
In an August 2017 statement on the monuments controversy, the American Historical Association (AHA) said that to remove a monument “is not to erase history, but rather to alter or call attention to a previous interpretation of history.” The AHA stated that most monuments were erected “without anything resembling a democratic process,” and recommended that it was “time to reconsider these decisions.” According to the AHA, most Confederate monuments were erected during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century, and this undertaking was “part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South.” According to the AHA, memorials to the Confederacy erected during this period “were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life.” A later wave of monument building coincided with the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s, and according to the AHA “these symbols of white supremacy are still being invoked for similar purposes.”
In the article, “Rethinking History,” former Princeton president and 28th President of the United States Woodrow Wilson is derided because of his racist comments. He told a black leader in 1914 that “segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded 
by you.” A different example from the article is what the University of Virginia has done in the past decade in trying to honor its slave past. At least 140 slaves helped build the university, and this fall, Virginia opened up a dorm named after two of the slaves who had worked on the campus before the Civil War.
One argument against changing the names of buildings or taking people off of our money is that our culture has become incredibly mired in political correctness. We are too worried about offending people, the argument goes, so we make decisions like these to make sure no one gets triggered. An argument for changing the names of buildings (like was recently done to Cobo Hall down town after people began to rethink the Detroit mayor’s stance against blacks integrating white neighborhoods in the 1950s) is that some things need to be fixed because having your name on a building is an honor. Are we finally recognizing the faults of the past and trying to make amends for them, because our nation, though it’s been a melting pot since its inception, is really starting to change? Or, can we learn something from the past instead of erasing it and blocking the things which we find disturbing?
This brings us to Andrew Jackson. This NY Times article from 2015 suggested putting a woman’s face on the 20$ bill.
“Jackson was a slave owner whose decisions annihilated American Indian tribes of the Southeast. He also hated paper currency and vetoed the reauthorization of the Second Bank of the United States, a predecessor of the Federal Reserve. Jackson is in the history books, but there’s no reason to keep him in our wallets.”
His record with the Indian Removal Act, his battles w/ Nicholas Biddle and the 2nd BUS, and the fact that he was a slave owner all count against him. But what about his adoption of an Indian boy during one of the campaigns to eradicate the Indians? Did America actually benefit from not having a central banking system for almost 80 years? He was a symbol of the common man, those who could newly vote in the elections of 1828 and 1832 voted for him overwhelmingly, because he was a common man at one time. But he was also an exceptional man, having fought in the War of 1812, amassed a fortune (though off the backs of slaves), and become the 7th president of the United States. There are very very few people who can claim these achievements.
Andrew Jackson was first honored by being on the $20 beginning in 1928 (to coincide w/ the 100th anniversary of his electio). Before that, Presidents Grover Cleveland and George Washington were on the bill as well as former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and also Lady Liberty. Then the idea came about of putting a woman on the $20 beginning in the year 2020 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Several women were finalists, but in 2015, Harriet Tubman won a poll and was originally slated to replace Hamilton on the $10, but because of the immense popularity of the play, the decision was made to then replace Jackson on the $20 a year later. Then candidate Trump in 2016 said that he thought Tubman was fantastic but opposed replacing Jackson becuase it would be “political correctness” that replaced him. In mid 2017, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin stated that “People have been on the bills for a long period of time. This is something we’ll consider; right now we have a lot more important issues to focus on.” He also stated that any new bill wouldn’t be ready until 2026 despite engravers at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing stated that there was already a bill in the works by 2019. So, the future of the $20 is up in the air.
But if we remove Jackson from the $20 and replace him with someone else, where do we stop? Using the slippery slope argument (which is always a dangerous fallacy), do we rename Washington D.C. because Washington was a slave holder? Do we take Lincoln off of the penny or the $5 because he had almost 30 Indians executed during the Civil War for sparking an uprising in Minnesota? Jefferson… we won’t even get into him.
As someone in the “Rethinking History” article states, if we are going to name buildings after people, should we expect them to be perfect? Maybe we should stop naming buildings after people. Or can we learn something from these flawed individuals (especially b/c everyone is flawed in some way or another)?
What are your thoughts about rethinking historical monuments? I see three possible alternatives to Jackson on the $20:
1. Keep him there and leave it as it is.
2. Swap him out with Harriet Tubman, and leave Andrew Jackson to be talked about in history classes.
3. Leave him on the bill but conduct better and more thorough education about Andrew Jackson’s legacy .
If you come up with another alternative, please include it in your post.
Since 1928, Andrew Jackson has been the face of the 20 dollar bill. Everyone had been okay with this, until recent controversy when people began to suggest replacing Jackson with Harriet Tubman.
Some people suggest just keeping Jackson on the bill, just because he has been on it for so long. This does make sense because it would just create confusion while the money with Jackson on it would still be circulating. Additionally, it could cause a change in several of the bills. All political figures have made mistakes and none of them are perfect, so if Jackson was replaced, it could make it okay and be an argument for replacing all of them. This is a good idea, just to keep things the same because sometimes change isn’t good.
Many people are suggesting that because of Jackson’s mistakes, he should be replaced by Harriet Tubman as the face on the 20 dollar bill. He did cause the Trail of Tears, owned slaves, and was ironically very against paper money and the Bank of The United States. Supporters of this idea say that having him on the bill is supporting him and therefore supporting the mistakes that he made and a few of the negative ideals that he had. I disagree with these people because although he indubitably did make mistakes, he doesn’t deserve to be taken off of the bill. At the time, the situations were different, and nobody alive today, will ever be able to understand what was happening at the time and what was going through his brain. He is in no way excused for his impact on the trail of tears or for having slaves, but he shouldn’t be dishonored because of it.
I completely agree with the people who argue that Jackson should be kept on the bill, and a more thorough education should be provided to honor Andrew Jackson’s legacy. This could help people to fully understand all of the things that he did for our country. Right now, a lot of people only know about the bad things, because they are uneducated about his presidency. Yes, he did make mistakes throughout his life but so does everyone. By educating people about him, we can learn from his mistakes and further understand his importance to our country and American politics.
1. I think that keeping Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill would be a good option. Andrew Jackson has been on the 20 dollar bill for a long. Taking Andrew Jackson off the bill seems like it could be a big hassle. It would also take a lot of time and effort to remove him and putting Harriet Tubman would take a decent amount of effort as well. As well as putting the bill, with Harriet Tubman, in circulation and taking the old one, with Andrew Jackson, would be another problem. Keeping Andrew Jackson on the bill would be best because the government already has a lot going on and that is another thing that they don’t need to worry about.
2.Taking Andrew Jackson off of the 20 dollar bill and replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman doesn’t do much. People have the argument that Andrew Jackson should be taken off of the 20 dollar bill because he did a lot of terrible things to the Native Americans. I am not denying that he did some bad things to the Native Americans, but taking him off the 20 dollar bill doesn’t change what he did. Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson were both very influential, they both need to be talked about in history textbooks.
3.In my opinion, the third option is the best one. The third option is the best one because the students can learn about how Andrew Jackson really was. The students would, ideally the students would learn about Andrew Jackson unbiasedly. When it comes down to it is, the things that Andrew Jackson did during his presidency are already done and taking him off the 20 dollar bill will not change anything. The best way to go about things is to teach students facts about what Andrew Jackson did before, during, and after his presidency. It is up to the students on how they interpret what Andrew Jackson did during his life. The student also needs to be taught about what Harriet Tubman did during her life. They also need to be taught about Harriet Tubman with facts. This will also allow the students to formulate their own opinions about Harriet Tubman.
Option one which is just keeping Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill is ok but schools should include an in-depth look at Andrew Jacksons’ history and overall life.
Option two is to swap him out with Harriet Tubman and leave Andrew Jackson to be talked about in history classes. I don’t believe that this choice is the best one. This is because it would spark controversy about the importance of Jackson. I’m not suggesting that Tubman was an unimportant historical figure but it would create unnecessary major political arguments.
I think that option three is the best choice for determining who should be on the bill. Andrew Jackson was the main founder of the democratic party as well as the hero of the common man at the time. Jackson created the Trail of Tears and the Indian Removal Act which resulted in the forced displacement of 50,000 Native Americans and took 25 million acres of Native American land for white settlement. Harriot Tubman is known for her contribution to the underground railroad which helped slaves become free. She risked her life as a “conductor” in the Underground Railroad. She was a former slave who also served as a spy for the Union during the Civil War. I think that we should keep Jackson on the 20$ bill but make sure there is a full understanding of him and all the historical figures that are taught in school. This will help ensure students to learn and help decide for themselves on their personal options on these people and overall become more knowledgeable. I believe that this overall agreement is the slippery slope argument as many presidents like Abe lincoln and Geroge Washington and many other historical figures have owned slaves. This creates a problem for every national landmark and other things or places named after presidents. Every president has made mistakes and each should be accountable for them but it makes it very hard to determine “who had the worst mistakes” in history. I believe that keeping things the way they are will stop future controversy but there should be deeper education on Jacksons Legacy.
It is unacceptable to allow Andrew Jackson to remain on the $20 bill. In my opinion, having someone’s face be on the official currency of the United States of America is an honor that should only be granted with great accomplishment. Jackson’s accomplishments, however, are outweighed by his wrongdoings. Jackson was a war hero, a “champion of the common man”, yet the major effect of the battles he won in the War 1812 and other battles was further dimishing the Native American people. Jackson is responsible for what is, in my eyes, one of the least honorable events in American history, the Trail of Tears. The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears was a genocide in all facets and Jackson is responsible for it. Jackson’s face was also placed on the twenty dollar bill during a time where segregation was alive and well. I believe that if a proposal was just going up for Jackson to be on the $20 bill today, it would be shot down. The only argument for keeping Jackson on the $20 bill is of convenience and to avoid the effects of his removal leading to the removal of other figures of American History who are not politically correct. There are no counter arguments specifically against the removal of Jackson’s face from the bill outside of what some people claim as their right to preserve the history of America. By removing Jackson’s face from the bill, you are not erasing the history. All documentation of Jackson’s life is still there, you are merely removing the honor from the horrors created by his treatment of black people and of Native American people. If you want to keep Jackson’s face on America’s currency because you are proud of this section of American History, then any moral argument will be futile against you. But, if you want to keep Jackson’s face on the bill as a reminder to learn from his mistakes, this makes more sense. Again, however, I feel statues and placement on official currency is more of an honor than a reminder. Especially when I, as a child, assumed all statues, memorials and other tributes were reserved for great people. Our education system should be here to inform us on what we need to learn from, although there remains plenty of room for improvement in the department of education.
Swapping Jackson’s face out for that of Harriet Tubman would be a sound solution. Harriet Tubman represents the abolitionist movement. Tubman can still represent the fact that we need to learn from our mistakes; the necessity of her heroism is reminder enough for me. Tubman is a hero for freeing many slaves. Andrew Jackson’s slaves could have been people Harriet Tubman would have helped to free, given their lives overlapped for a decent amount of time. Many argue it would cost too much money to perform this transition, and that there are better things on which to spend the money. However, I feel that the funding for projects such as the wall on the US-Mexico border would be put to better use in helping make the transfer to the face of Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.
As I state above, our education system does need to improve. But, it shouldn’t be necessary to have to explain that someone we saw everyday as a kid, and thought was a hero, was actually responsible for an “ethnic cleansing.” In my opinion, we can remove Jackson from the bill and improve education about his legacy. For maybe if more people knew of his true legacy, they wouldn’t want him on the bill in the first place. Yes, if you remove Jackson, it will most likely lead to the removal of memorials of several other politcally incorrect figures. Is this really a bad thing? Again, having your name or face be on any US Government property is an honor reserved for those whose great deeds outweigh their faults. Jackson, and others who are responsible for similar atrocities, who mistreated people based on gender (Jackson felt women were delicate and in need of constant protection) and race as inferiors could never have their deeds outweigh these faults.
I think that Andrew Jackson the seventh president should be removed from the 20 dollar bill. For one the man didn’t even like the BUS, and yet we honor him by putting him on the 20 dollar bill? Weird. And it’s no coincidence that when Trump, whose favorite president is Andrew Jackson, came into the office, the 2020 plans to change the face of the 20 dollar note was postponed until 2028. If Jackson’s treatment of marginalized people doesn’t move you to support the removal of his face, then the fact that he caused a 5 year depression or maybe he vetoed 12 times, or ignored the congress and judiciary, or maybe you can look at the genocide of innocent people disregarding their race.
Maybe it is just time for a change on the face of the 20 dollar bill. Before Jackson “Presidents Grover Cleveland and George Washington were on the bill as well as former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and also Lady Liberty” were on the face of the 20 dollar note, other important historical figures need to be honored, and what greater way to honor somebody than putting them on a twenty dollar bill? If Harriet Tubman was put on the $20, it would be monumental for both women and blacks.
When this question comes up, another question comes up, don’t we have to change everything that is controversial and insensitive to a group of people? Thats a hard question, I wouldn’t say yes, because every person in history has made a mistake, but some bigger and more impactful than others. Look at the first president Washington. Washington owned slaves, and had a knack for using others as scapegoats for his own problems, but he also created precedents for future presidents. I think you cannot look at just the bad in a person, but you have to look at the sum of all the good and bad someone did, and determine whether you should honor them.
A possible solution to this controversy may be changing the person on the fact of a bill every maybe 100 years or so, so that it is fair and honors every part of history.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/george-washington-facts
I believe that Andrew Jackson should be kept on the twenty dollar bill, although he should be taught more thoroughly. Andrew Jackson was a stoic leader and deserves to be on the twenty dollar bill. Even though Andrew Jackson did negative influences like killing many Indians and was a slave owner. He still did positives like becoming a Major General in the War of 1812 and successfully leading America in many wars during his career. He also adopted an Indian during the time period of The Trail of Tears and kept the banking system running for 80 years. There were still many positives to Andrew Jackson representing America during this time period and reasons for him to remain on the twenty dollar bill.
Some may argue that Andrew Jackson should not be on the twenty dollar bill due to his foul acts. He did kill many Indians during the Trail of Tears and was a slaveholder. Hence, many thought he did not deserve this honor to be on the twenty dollar bill.
To remove a historic figure off a dollar bill would cause many more problems. Our country has become very mired in political correctness, and this move would not be. Something like a change to the twenty dollar bill would create controversy. Since some believed Andrew Jackson was a negative figure and needed to be taken off the twenty dollar bill, while others believed Andrew Jackson was a positive figure for America and deserves to stay on the twenty dollar bill. The safest decision would be to keep Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill, because if we were to change it to Harriet Tubman, some would argue to change other historical figures from their own bill or coin because of their past actions. All people have their flaws, and with Andrew Jackson’s flaws, he still deserves to be on the twenty dollar bill because of his positives on America.
Although, Andrew Jackson should be expressed more in depth. Many people just realize his negatives on America, but his positives on America are not bolded. Andrew Jackson is criticized for his mistakes and has not much recognition for his achievements except for his appearance on the twenty dollar bill, which is why he deserves to remain on it.
1. Keep him there and leave him as is.
When reading about the controversy on whether or not to take down Confederate monuments, and considering two questions, that being “Are we finally recognizing the faults of the past and trying to make amends for them, because our nation, though it’s been a melting pot since its inception, is really starting to change? Or, can we learn something from the past instead of erasing it and blocking the things which we find disturbing?” –here are my thoughts:
Taking down a confederate monument, or rethinking history and altering it by taking down or changing any type of historical monument or token will not make amends for something disturbing about our past. I believe there will never be a way for making amends for some of our past events of history. As part of everyday life, people build off of mistakes made in the past; if you do something wrong the first time, you learn from it and you know what to do and what not to do instead. Relating that thought to this situation, I think some things we learn about history are some things we know not to repeat. Taking down a Confederate monument is like sugar-coating our flaws, which I think is unhealthy; taking down a Confederate monument (or anything that reminds us of a disturbing part of our history) is more like acting as if nothing ever happened rather than making amends, and if “nothing ever happened”, then what’s the point of change? Taking down a Confederate monument does not count as changing our ways. I believe we should embrace our history because, even though it’s unfortunate, that’s what makes us who we are. Kind of like how your personal flaws make you who you are.
So, my opinion on keeping Jackson on the $20 is not a whole “yes”, but if you don’t keep him there, it should not be for the reason of “making amends”.
2. Swap him out with Harriet Tubman, and leave Andrew Jackson to be talked about in history classes.
As mentioned in the previous alternative, swapping Jackson for Harriet Tubman will not make amends if that is the reason for doing so. In the blog, it mentioned how “Andrew Jackson was first honored by being on the $20 beginning in 1928 (to coincide w/ the 100th anniversary of his election). Before that, Presidents Grover Cleveland and George Washington were on the bill as well as former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and also Lady Liberty.” The blog also mentioned that the idea of putting a woman on the $20 bill was due to the reason of being “to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote”. I think anyone would agree that there are a handle full of women who could qualify, but Harriet Tubman had won poll as explained in the blog. My point to this that I don’t think replacing Jackson is actually because they want to make amends, but I think it’s to recognize other great people and their achievements. I don’t the mindset behind this is that Jackson has flaws and Tubman does not. And to add to that, how do we really know if Tubman is truly pure? I think one example that relates to this is Dr. King; Dr. King has some of the most notable achievements, but do they really matter if you think about his relationships with women? I for one do not believe in flaws depreciating achievements. Jackson is on the bill to recognize his achievements, and it’ll be the same way for Tubman if she is printed on the bill.
3. Leave him on the bill but conduct better and more thorough education about Andrew Jackson’s legacy.
One thing I wanted to mention in the previous alternative is that yes, Jackson is on the bill to recognize his achievements, but we shouldn’t just know him for his achievements and that should apply to everyone. Like I’ve mentioned twice now, leaving Jackson on the bill is ok, and if you were to take him off, do not do so to make amends, but on that second part about more thorough education about Jackson, I think sure, why not? But I don’t think it’s necessary (but that depends on how much “more thorough” really means). I think when you learn about a historical figure you should learn not only what they did but who they were as a person, their opinions of certain topics and their beliefs. This is actually what we learn about in APUSH for each historical figure. However, students should also be reassured that one’s flaws do not have an effect on one’s achievements. I think this relates to presentism; people to consider the times in which people grew up in. In this case, in Jackson’s time, it was normal to have slaves, it was expected to have a prejudice against ethnicities other than whites, etc.; people need to take this into consideration. Sometimes, when learning about this past, you can let the present interfere.
So my opinion on this alternative is that Jackson can be left on the bill, but when we look at him on the bill, we should recognize both his flaws and achievement, but not them interfere with each other, and know that he’s not on the bill to be recognized for his being but for his achievements, and finally, leaving on the bill does not bring a need to learn about him more thoroughly.
When it comes to removing or keeping Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill, I think that the best option would be that he stays on it. If Jackson was removed it raises other questions about historical figures such as if George Washington should also be removed from the 1 dollar bill because he was a slave owner or if Abraham LIncoln should be removed from the penny. While Jackson did do horrible things during his lifetime, he also did some great things that helped him get on the 20 dollar bill in the first place and stay there from 1928 all the way until now. When evaluating Jacksons lifetime, people tend to focus just on the bad things he did instead of the good. I think you should still acknowledge the bad things he has done, but also take note of the positive things he has done for the country as well. If Andrew Jackson was replaced with Harriet Tubman, it would honor her but not in the way she deserves to be honored. Harriet Tubman was such an important part of freeing slaves and the underground railroad that she deserves something like a monument, similar to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson’s, to honor all of her actions instead of just being on the 20 dollar bill. If Andrew Jackson was taken off of the dollar it would not change anything and still wouldn’t get rid of or hide what he did. If Andrew Jackson was taken off the 20 dollar bill schools should conduct a more thorough and complete education on him. This would let people know about and it would shed more light on what he did during his life and presidency, and how a lot of it wasn’t that great. Keeping Jackson on the 20 dollar bill could be used as a learning experience for people to understand more about Jackson and other historical figures around the same time. They could have the opportunity to learn more information that focuses on all the good actions as well as all the bad actions of certain historical figures.
Personally, I am somehow torn between the second alternative of swapping Jackosn out with Harriet Tubman and leaving him to be talked about in history classes. And the Third alternative of Leaving him on the bill but conduct better and more thorough education about Andrew Jackson’s legacy. Swapping Jackosn out with Harriet Tubman and leaving Jackson to be the talk about in history class seems like a good idea because Andew Jackson was a slave owner and made decisions that destroyed the American Indian tribes of the Southeast (he’s a colonizer) and he vetoed the reauthorization of the Second Bank of the United States , he also hated paper money. In all Jackson was just a terrible person who likes many others in that time period and even now favored white people over any other race. Harriet Tubman, conductor of the famous Underground Railroad lead over 300 slaves to freedom and making 19 trips into the south. Harriet Tubman has made a positive and influential difference in American History. For these reasons, I believe that replacing Jackson with Harriet on the $20 and leaving Jackson to be talked about in history classes would be a better option. That being said the idea of leaving Jackson the $20 bill and conducting a better and more thorough education about his legacy still appeals to me. Taking Jackson off the $20 bill would be s major inconvenience considering there are already millions $20 bills around America recalling all the $20s to replace him with Harriet Tubman would be a lot of work and swapping Jackosn off the $20 bill won’t erase the mistakes and history that was made due to his poor and impulsive decisions, which is why I also think giving people a real, honest, thorough and educational view on why Andrew Jackson did some of the things, like (for example) veto the charter for the second bank of the united states is also a good idea. For these reasons, I am torn between the two alternatives. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone can learn from them, yes in my opinion what Harriet Tubman did was more influential and impactful, but Andrew Jackson is already on the $20 and what he’s done is wrong, even so nobody is perfect and removing him would be a long process that in the end may be worth it.
I believe the best decision is not to remove Jackson from the $20 bill, but instead add Harriet Tubman into circulation and print both figures. It’s not only the fact that Jackson had a troubling life in terms of morally right actions, it’s also the addition of morals and actions of Harriet. Jackson was highly responsible for the tragedy of the Trail of Tears and thus becomes an example of racism and abuse of presidential power. Women are currently excluded from being pictured on dollar bills, much like they were in controlling history. African Americans are completely excluded from being pictured on currency, much like they were in controlling history. Both groups of people play big roles in America today, much like Harriet Tubman did in her time. The addition of Harriet Tubman would provide an example of taking action for justice and an example of the importance of women and African Americans.
The reason I am not advocating for full removal of Andrew Jackson is the domino effect it may trigger. It is important to recognize the social atmosphere when reviewing historical figure’s past actions. He still remains the symbol of the common man, and their right to vote. I could personally do without seeing him on my twenties however, If we remove on historical figure for their actions, we will likely have to change many more. While I do agree things such as confederate symbols and other symbols of extremely outdated and harmful beliefs should be removed, symbols of otherwise beneficial figures.
I also believe putting someone who got rid of America’s bank would not necessarily appreciate being on a bank note. He went as far to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of a federal bank. If it were Harriet Tubman, I suspect she would be more grateful to be recognized for the justice she did.
As a femenist, I agree that the sentiment of celebrating our right to vote is very meaningful. In Jackson we celebrate the value of the common man’s vote. Adding a woman to the twenty dollar bill in celebration to our right to vote seems fitting. Maybe we also add another figure to the bill to commemorate African American’s right to vote on a special date to that addition.
It is a horrible idea to merely leave things as they are with this debate. That would simply kick the can down the road, ensuring that there would be a later debate about who to replace Jackson with. This may be a radical example, but much like the Civil War, conflicts built up over a long period without satisfaction on either side will eventually result in disaster. We must decide this issue here and now, and merely throwing your hands up and declaring things done is not the proper way of addressing liberal v. conservative conflict. That said, there are ideas for addressing this issue.
.
The proposition for keeping Jackson on the $20 bill, while certainly politically correct and a positive effort, would be entirely inefiicient what with the current workload and resistance against the Federal reserve and associated institutions. This effort would require a partial redesign of the counterfeiting countermeasures included in the Jackson area of the bill, and in light of recent attempted executive seizure of Federal Reserve powers, rhere are mich more critical matters to be managed if we wish to not just erase our stained legacy of the past, but leave a pure tablet in the annals of our future history.
However, this does not imply that we should ignore Jackson’s sins and crimes. Jackson owned slaves, committed and condoned swathes of ethnic cleansing, and actively worked to foster corruption and self-interest in his government officials. Jackson does not deserve to remain in the position he currently occupies in American history, and we should examine Jackson’s legacy and the long term repurcussions of such policies as the Specie Circular and the Indian Removal Act. More than that, however, I feel that the best way to satisfy Jackson’s wishes is to continue this debate over even his minor manifestations. Only when Jackson fades in importance will he truly have been punished, for his greatest desire was always to inspire people to action: whether it be as a general or president. We must stop obliging his desires, and begin to develop a consensus as to Jackson’s true actions.
I think replacing jackson on the 20 dollar bill is a bad idea. Harriet Tubman was an amazing human who did amazing things, but Andrew jackson had much a direct political effect on the nation, good and bad. Andrew Jackson had major issues during his campaign, the largest being his Indian Removal Act. This was a huge stain on his presidency. Jackson is a pioneer in politics, he changed the way we viewed president and the powers that position held. Andrew Jackson was a war hero, who was the representative of the common man. I do not think switching to Harriet Tuban would be a viable option there are so many bills in circulation replacing all of them would be nearly impossible and also very costly. Soft paper money as well as coins are used less and less by generation. In that respect, not a lot of people would notice harriet tubman on the 20 if they even happen to find one. We should recognize Jackson and keep him on the bill because his election was a change of an era. Not to mention the out roar from die hard american historians and deep rooted patriots. Harreit tubman on the 20 dollar bill would most likely start a big controversy surrounding it that could go on for a while. However I’m not saying she doesn’t deserve to be on the 20 dollar bill. She deserves a bill but I dont think replacing jackson is the best option. Leaving the bill the way it is and just educating people more is the best idea. Also that idea is the least amount of hassle. Rather giving her, her own separate bill might be a good resolution to the problem. Maybe even the 2 dollar bill or something to that effect. I think the best thing to do is to keep Andrew Jackson. Schools should be responsible for teaching about what he did. Then the public can judge for themselves how they want to view him. I think he may even serve as a reminder not to repeat the errors of the past and keep progressing further. How would replacing Jackson on the $20 bill effect how he was viewed. I think it would paint him in a negative light.
The debate whether or not Andrew Jackson should be on the 20 dollar bill has been trending for the past few years. Surprisingly, I held a side to the debate when it started, even though I did not really have a care for who was on the bill. In 8th grade, our US History class had a discussion on whether or not Andrew Jackson should stay on the 20 dollar bill. However, I forgot the contents of that debate, which led me to do research for both sides. Whilst doing my research, I noticed something: There was a third side to this debate, which is a slight rarity to discussions like these. This third side actually had good ideas as to how to fix the problem of who should be on the bill. While the main two candidates were either Andrew Jackson (the current person on the bill) or Harriet Tubman (to replace Jackson on the bill). One of the sides wanted to keep Jackson on the bill because since he was a war hero, founded the Democratic Party, and was a hero for the common man, he earned his spot on the 20 dollar bill. The other side wanted Harriet Tubman on the bill because of her accomplishments on the Underground Railroad, bringing 300+ slaves to freedom, including her parents. However, this third side looked at these two people and said, “Why not pair them?” Putting two figures on the bills would satisfy both sides. If each of our bills had two figures paired, we could have two opinions represented on each bill. We could pair founding fathers on a few bills, and for the rest of them we could use for more recent figures, such as Rosa Parks. If this was to be implemented into the National Bank, two sides could be represented and there would not be as much debate on who should be on the bills. Even if Andrew Jackson was a war hero, and even if Andrew Jackson hated the bank (making it a bit ironic he is on a bill), the fans of Harriet Tubman would most likely be pleased with this idea, as their side could be represented along with the side of Andrew Jackson. This is why I believe we should have two figures on each bill.
I think that Andrew Jackson should be taken off the 20 dollar bill. I feel that Harriet Tubman is deserving of the spot on the twenty because she symbolizes the American idea that all men are created equal. She fought for her freedom just like the revolutionaries who fought against Great Britain for their freedom. Jackson on the other hand was pro slavery. This, at times was the social norm but today however things are very different. Slavery illegal and morally wrong in the eyes of society today, so why should a pro slavery president have a spot on a type of bill but not a woman who fought for the right for everyone to be free. Jackson also treated native americans horribly, forcing the native americans to move and killed many in the process. Jackson never showed compassion to any sort of minorities, rather he was vicious and ended up killing thousands. Why would we want to keep someone who killed thousands based on their race or ethnicity on our twenty dollar bill. We fought against this during World War Two but yet we have a president who killed thousands on our twenty dollar bill. I think that by removing the bad parts of our history from society today, like the confederate flag in south carolina, we can help teach people that racism is not acceptable and won’t be tolerated. We can continue to do this with the twenty dollar bill. The ideas promoted by Andrew Jackson do not represent what America stands for today. I think that if we have removed Andrew Jackson from the twenty, we can remember him in history classes. I don’t think that Andrew Jackson is going to care if he is removed from the twenty. Harriet Tubman is a great choice for the twenty dollar bill. She helped fight for the end of slavery. She helped hundreds of slaves escape slavery. She is very deserving of being on the twenty dollar bill.
I think the third alternative, to leave him and more thoroughly teaching about Andrew Jackson and his legacy, is the most compelling. To take him off the bill would be only recognizing the bad things he did and ignoring that good or bad, he had a big role in the history of our country. Teaching more about Andrew Jackson’s legacy in class, would let the people decide their opinion on him. He did many things that had lasting effects on The United States and taking him off relates to an idea from the Jefferson blog which was imposing our morals and ideas on history. We don’t want to impose aloud current morals on history because then it skews our perception of it. It also hinders our knowledge of our history. If we just write him off as a bad person who doesn’t deserve to be on the bill, that would deincentivize people from studying his life. If we were to just swap out Jackson we might not get sufficient knowledge of what he did, that could mean repeating history or at the very least not knowing the history of our country. people who don’t or haven’t learned about him in history know of him because he is on the bill. It might mean less people knowing what he did and less people able to make a decision on whether they like him or not. Just leaving him as is also isn’t the best option. I think going in depth on what he did and how that affects and relates in the county today is something we need more of. Simply ending this dilemma with absolutely no change gets no one anywhere. You would get no change in how people perceive him now and you would get no change in how we are educated about him. I think the fact that this debate gave us an opportunity to look back and see how we can address and better portray our history and making no change or doing absolutely nothing is a disservice. That’s why option three is the best, we leave Jackson on the twenty which allows us to better acknowledge his lasting effect on the country, while learning ore in-depth about those effects and what they mean today.
Of the three choices given, I personally want to take him off the bill and leave his reign to the history classes. However, Alex said after class yesterday that taking him off the bill would make his bill rarer, and thus more valuable, so that made me rethink my stance on the issue. This might just be because I personally am biased against Andrew Jackson, and I don’t think the good he did balances out the bad. I believe that we should keep him on the bill, but educate the people more thoroughly on his life, the life and accomplishments of Harriet Tubman, and the lives of the early presidents and founding fathers, good and bad. John Quincy Adams is well known for his lackluster presidency, but his time as Secretary of State and his post-presidential senate career are where he really shines,especially his foreign relations policies during the Monroe presidency. Conversely, Henry Clay is known for manipulating the House to get to be Secretary of State, the unspoken successor to the president, during the Corrupt Bargain, but he was one of the greatest compromisers this country has ever known. Almost every single compromise in the early to mid-1800s that didn’t feature him at some point. Jackson’s legacy is riddled with misdemeanors, but just focusing on the bad things he did aren’t doing anyone any favors. However, there is absolutely no way to talk about anything good he did without bringing up at least two other bad things he did related to that subject. He adopted a native american as his own, but he forced 12,000 Cherokee to take a long journey that killed over 4,000 of them, openly going against a Supreme Court decision, and only adopted that kid after massacring his entire village.
1. Andrew Jackson should be left on the 20$ bill. Historical views are often perceived differently after numerous years because the facts and information are not actually happening but rather learned out of historical texts. Many people just believe he was a terrible president now but as we can see that everyone in that time loved Jackson because he was a conman man for the people. Although he may have made some questionable decisions to make us wonder whether he should be represented on the dollar bill or not such as not supporting the second BUS. Even though many people’s view of him has changed he was put on the dollar bill than for a reason and to take him off of it would disregard him as a president because all the other presidents have made decisions that were both bad and good and went without being seen as unworthy to be in there coin or bill because of the bad they’ve done.
Secondly it would be a major inconvenience to change all 20 dollar bills because the bill is used so numerously and to fully convert to a different 20 would take up to years because of the circulation of the 20 dollar bills we know today. To change it to Harriet Tubman would make Jackson be seen as even more of a bad president because he will have done all the bad things he did in his presidency and gotten taken off the bill. Because he was seen as a common man and renowned by the people then he was put on bill. Changing the face on a dollar bill does not change are thoughts about either person but rather glorified one over the other. To change the bill would be a great inconvenience and ultimately unworth the time and effort for it will still be a 20 dollar bill no matter who is on the bill.
Personally, I absolutely despise idolism but it’s a natural reaction when you want your opinion to be the right and just one. We put them on a pedestal and when they do something wrong, something you never would have expected them to do, it all falls down. It happened to Andrew Jackson (just much later), and many other well-known persons. It will continue to happen and that’s why I agree with the idea that naming monuments after people is a terrible idea. We can’t rename and all memorabilia (that would be everything), but we can make an effort to know all the heroes in the world are villains in other stories, and use this new knowledge in the present and future. With naming important things after them, it gives them power. The power to still be worthy of their achievements even when they’re seemed to not be. They power they had over their victims remain with those monuments, some very literally set into stone.
A situation similar to the push for Andrew Jackson is King Leopold’s legacy. King Leopold ll of Belgium had rule over Congo colonies beginning of 1885. He instituted the Congo genocide to generate wealth to his own throne, largely from obtaining and the industrialization of the massive amounts of rubber that was there. Yet, there’s a proud statue of Leopold that stands to this day in Belgium, in its own capital; Brussels. The pain he caused paired with the respect those statues show of him continues to harm and cause twice as much pain. Simply because of the fact that the things that got him to that place of respect and level of wealth was off of the backs of enslaved and tortured humans that nobody even knows about. The horror Leopold caused had been disregarded since the day it started. The effects of the recent time period continue to present time but is not taught worldwide. That genocide killed more people than the Holocaust, yet it is ignored. To move on but not forget is the lesson we have not learned from history. Since childhood, we learn about Columbus and his so-called discovery of the “New World”. Andrew Jackson was an influential American president, yet that influence caused mostly pain.
To keep Andrew on the bill would be a dishonor to the Native American community, especially if we’ve been had the knowledge and national realizations of the horrors he caused. His abominations should be widely taught. Ignorance is not an option, not when we have the resources to learn and grow from.
I believe that the right option to solve this heated debate over whether Andrew Jackson should remain on the 20 dollar bill or not is option 2. Which would involve swapping Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill and conducting better and more thorough education about Jackson’s legacy as president. Although Andrew Jackson could in some way be argued as a successful president, this does not justify why he should be on the $20 bill. As President, he did not approve of the national bank and believed it was a form of benefitting the government rather than the citizens. If he did not believe in the national bank, he should not represent the national currency of our country. Also, seeing as our money represents our ideals and represents our beliefs on an international scale, Andrew Jackson most definitely is not suitable as the face of our $20 bill. His values go against the very ideals of America today. He discriminated against women, Indians, and African Americans. These are the minorities that make up a significant portion of America’s infrastructure and economy today. They provide a substantial amount of the nation’s gross domestic product and should be accurately represented by someone who did not actively and deliberately suppress and discriminate against them. In my opinion, Harriet Tubman is a suitable candidate for an African American to take Jackson’s place seeing as he was the most famous “conductor” on the Underground Railroad when she led more than 300 African Americans to freedom in a span of ten years, and actively worked to achieve equality for African Americans during her life. So that’s why Harriet Tubman would most definitely be more suitable as the face of the $20 bill than the racist and suppressive Andrew Jackson. To add another idea to the mix, They could add John Ross as a representative for Native Americans seeing as he was the one who led the Cherokee tribe through the times of hatred and discrimination towards all Native Americans during the Jackson presidency. John Ross also established a firm government for the Cherokees and did everything he could to fight for his tribe. I think John Ross would be a good idea as well as Harriet Tubman because both stood up for freedom and equality for all people.
Andrew Jacksons face should taken off of the 20$ bill and be replaced with Harriett Tubman. Andrew Jackson as President of the United States committed great atrocitys towards Native Americans and slaves. Also Jackson caused a massive economic depression, and despised the B.U.S, but yet he is somehow rewarded with his face on our currency. Being on our currency is an honor, which is something that Andrew Jackson does not deserve, due to the atrocities he committed as president. where as to Harriett Tubman is a symbol of freedom and a symbol of what this country was founded on. Tubman only created positive change as opposed to Jackson who is responsible for the infamous trail of tears which killed thousands. An award as grand as your face on the currency Americans use every day, should only be granted to people who only accomplished positive things. In Jacksons lifetime the negative affects he had on the country clearly outweigh the positive affects he had the country.
Many people would argue that taking Jackson off the 20$ bill would be an effort to erase him from history, which is false. Jackson was a very important figure in this American history and everybody should be educated on the life of Andrew Jackson in school due to his prominence in our nations history. When people are educated fully on the type of person and president Jackson they can form their own opinion of him, but putting him on our currency gives of an assertion that Jackson was a great figure in history, as all other faces on the currency were, but this could not be farther from the truth. Although Andrew Jackson feats were being a war hero and “Champion of the common man”, his failures were Destroying the National bank which created the worst ecenomic depression the country had ever seen, and the Indian removal act led to the deaths of thousands The trail of tears can be defined as “Ethnic Cleansing” another phrase for genocide. An award as grand as your face on the currency that Americans use everyday should only be awarded to figures who created positive change. In Jacksons lifetime the positive change that he created, clearly was outweighed by the negative affect that he had on the country. Harriett Tubman is a figure that has only created positive change, as a liberator of slaves, and as a leader of the abolitionist movement. Harriett Tubman constantly risked her life and freedom to liberate slaves, she is somebody that we should be reminded about not and
somebody who was responsible for an “ethnic cleansing”.
2.I believe that we should put Harriet Tubman on the twenty dollar bill because of the positive impact she had in the country’s history. Harriet Tubman did so much good for the U.S. that she should be remembered not just by history classes that we are required to take. Andrew Jackson is mostly remembered for the negative impact that he had on the history of America so why should he be on the twenty dollar bill if he did all of this negative impacts. For starters I should tell you about what he did that was such a negative impact that he should not be on a twenty dollar bill. Andrew Jackson was the first president to go against the ruling of the Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson was the president that was responsible for the Trail of Tears that the Native Americans had to travel. Andrew Jackson was responsible for the creation of the Indian Removal Act in eighteen thirty. Andrew Jackson was also accountable for the veto of the recreation of the Second Bank of the United States. Andrew Jackon was also a ruthless killer who murdered Native American women and children only just to get back at them for running away from the U.S.’s unfair and unconstitutional rules that were against the Native Americans. Harriet Tubman on the other hand has made several immensely positive impacts in U.S. history. Harriet Tubman was an escaped slave herself at the age of twenty felt the need to inform the people on how the slaves were being treated in the south. Harriet Tubman served as a conductor on the Underground Railroad for eleven years, leading more than seventy slaves to freedom. Harriet Tubman could have just left all the other slaves that were in need of desperate help out to drive because she had already lived an eventful life but instead she chose to take a chance and do the right thing. Harriet Tubman also served as a Union spy during the Civil War for the north. Harriet Tubman was also the first woman to lead an armed assault during the Civil War on the Combahee River Raid. The reasons are clear and the evidence solid so this is why Harriet Tubman should go on the twenty dollar bill.
Jack K.
It doesn’t matter if Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill. It doesn’t matter because, what difference does it make? Some people do not think Andrew Jackson should be on the $20 bill because of what he did to the Native Americans with the Trail of Tears. He directly defied a Supreme Court ruling; In Worchester versus Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that the state governments do not have power over Native American tribes–only the federal government does. Jackson let the states take the Cherokees land and put them on a reservation. People don’t think that Jackson should be on the $20 bill because her defied the Supreme Court. He probably ended up on the $20 bill because of his role in the Battle of New Orleans and his military career in general, which was very successful.
He did bad stuff, but it was hundreds of years ago. I don’t think it matters who is on our money. What matters is whether or not or money is worth anything. The National Treasury decides whose image goes on money. They choose people based on the historical significance relevant to our country. When one looks at the people who have been chosen to be engraved or printed on US currency, Andrew Jackson fits in.
Even though I don’t think it matters if he’s on our currency, I do think that people should be taught about his storied past. He was a very confrontational person and fiercely defended women’s honor. When he was a child, his mother went to a british prison ship to care for one of his cousins and she didn’t come back. He was deeply affected by the loss of his mother. Later on in his life he met his future wife but she was married to an abusive husband so she divorced her husband. But the divorce papers never went through so she was married tow two men at the same time. During Andrew Jackson’s campaign for the presidency people found out about this and criticized him for this but he was the bigger man and won the presidency the second time.
Andrew Jackson is an important man in the story of american history and he is also represented on twenty dollar bills and I believe that is rightfully so. People have begun to question the decision of Andrew Jackson on the bill, because he has made massive mistakes in the past such as causing the trail of tears, owning slaves, and being very against paper money and the idea of the bank of the united states all together. I don’t think he should be dishonored because of these actions though. I believe that people just need to be educated on Andrew jackson’s legacy. No one is perfect and im not degrading the mistakes Jackson had but he is an honorable man in history and if peoples education expanded on his legacy they would understand. Perspective on life and what was most important and what was going on at the time of his presidency was not at all like today.What he did for our country was important and positive. Taking him off the bill would be confusing and not at all necessary.