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.
Keeping Jackson on the $20 dollar bill is a good option. It is a good option because he has been on the bill for so long and taking him off seems like it could be a hassle and it would take up time and resources that could be used for better and more important issues. Taking Jackson off of the bill is not going to change anything. It won’t make up for the bad things that he did during his presidency, and I don’t think people really even care or realize who is on the money they are spending most of the time. Now, lots of purchasing happens online and you don’t even see the money. I think that people are too worried about offending someone but taking Jackson off of the bill is not going to make anything better and the person he is replaced with could offend another group of people.
Swapping out Jackson for Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill could be a bad idea. Jackson has been on the bill for so long, and it has never been an issue until recent times. The only reason people want Jackson removed is because of what he did during his presidency. Removing him from the bill is not going to change anything he did and, if you put Tubman on the bill it could create a whole new argument. Although Tubman was a great woman, im sure someone could find a flaw in her, or something she did that is seen as bad in today’s view of society. I think a better option rather than replacing someone on a bill would be to make a new bill entirely, or put them on a bill that is no longer commonly printed. This would avoid any controversy and would make both sides happy.
Keeping Jackson but teaching more about him is the best option. This would allow us to recognize what he did wrong and fully learn the unbiased truth about him. Then when we see him on the $20 dollar bill, it will remind us of what he did wrong in the past and how we can do better in the future and not make the same mistakes as the past. Many people expect these big figures in our history to be amazing and perfect, but no one is and no one can be. I have always been told to learn from my mistakes and failures in sports and in school, and I feel that same thing applies well to this issue. We should recognize our mistakes and not try to hide them but learn from them.
As the 21st century unfolds, people are becoming very worried about offending others, some might argue they are worrying to much. Because of these feelings a lot of names, monuments, and organizations are being changed or taken away because; what was previously acceptable in the past and honoring our history, is now offensive. For example the Confederate monument in South Carolina was removed because it was honoring a time when they segregated people, just because of their skin color, also many teams with Indian Mascots have been changing their logos because using the Warrior as their mascot is offensive to Indian Culture. Both of these issues that were altered were things that acknowledge our history; taking these things away doesn’t mean we’re forgetting about them, it just means that we are not honoring them anymore. Just like the previous examples, some people are arguing for Andrew Jackson to be taken off the twenty dollar bill. This is because people believe he was not a very honorable man, because of how many Indians he killed, the slaves he owned, and they think it’s pointless that he is on one of U.S bills because he wasn’t a supporter of the bank. They also think there are better people that are more worth honoring, that could go on the twenty dollar bill, like Hariet Tubman. The solution that I believe would be the best for rethinking historical monuments, specifically having Andrew Jackson on a twenty dollar bill, is to leave him on it, but improve the way teachers educate students about him and his history. The reason I believe this is a better solution than taking him off, and putting a more honorable person on the bill is because there will be a ripple effect, that will occur towards organizations, needing to change monuments acknowledging history. It would be hard to know what was crossing the line, of what to change, that stemmed from our history. For example, should the United States government take Abraham Lincoln off of the penny because some of his actions led to the killing of many slaves during the civil war? People have to understand that many figures in our history that helped our country get to where it is today, did things that were wrong, and especially unacceptable using our ideals today. But, people need to recognize both: what these figures did right, and what they did wrong, to learn from these failures and successes.
I feel like they could just leave it the same. Like I know people have many opinions about it but its been the same for years. But it’s kinda like why would they change it now after its been so long. Like the issues about him have been brought up many times throughout the years and it has not changed. So why change it now y’know. Plus how much money do you think it would cost to have it changed it would be a lot more than just 20 dollars. I honestly don’t see why it’s really such a big deal it’s just money.Just money with the face of a man. They could teach more about the things he did that were not so heroic. Like in our views today a lot of things that jackson had done were not civil. Stop sugar coating it and tech it right, it ovuse that americans history isn’t the nicest. Also taking him off the 20 dollar bill might start a chain reaction and all of the other presidents that did someone bad things would probably get removed also. They could teach more about how jackson handled the indian removal and why he passed the act. That’s why I also see that people would want him to be removed from the 20 dollar bill. Because of all the pain he had caused the inadian people I’d say that’s reasonable to be upset. But as I stated before, I think it should say how it has been. It’s been the same for so many years. Like the idea of having harriet tubman instead it’s very interesting but who knows they could just add another type of dollar instead of changing one that already exist. If people really wanted it to change it would have been changed a long time ago. Like we as people can learn from the mistakes of the past to prevent it from happening again. That’s why having more education on this matter would help america for the better. It’s just the way the world works to learn from the mistakes of the old so the young do better.
1. Keeping Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill is the easiest thing to do, because either way there are so many 20 dollar bills in circulation that would be nearly impossible to fully convert to a new bill. furthermore, anyone who is a face on currency had a strong political impact, and yes Harriet Tubman did amazing things, but Andrew Jackson had a much more political and direct effect on the nation, for both good and bad. I am not opposed to Harriet Tubman being on a bill, I do not think that there needs to be a switch, I think a reintroduction of a 2 dollar bill with Harriet Tubman on it would do her more justice than replacing someone who has been on there for so many years.
2. Switching Harriet Tubman in for Andrew Jackson on the 20, doesn’t give either of them justice. Harriet Tubman was a major component of the underground railroad and helped many slaves escape into the north all while having a bounty on her head. Andrew Jackson on the other hand did many things in his presidential era and his political career, although not all of them were on the good side, personally I think that Jackson had a more profound effect on the history.
3. The third option is the best, because people will learn to see Andrew Jackson as he was, completely unbiased of whether or not he was a good person or president. When it comes down to it, the things he has done are already done and nothing that happens in the present can affect what happened in the 1830’s, so learning about him and the rest of his administration, and educating people on what they did on the trail of tears and to the other tribes is the best way to learn. Keeping him on the 20 and reminding people of what happened every time they see a 20 dollar bill is a better option than to get rid of him and replace him for something of a slightly more positive note. Thinking of the mistakes that people made before us is the best way to not make those same mistakes going into the future, Proper education and the constant reminding of what was done to get our country to where it is now is the best option.
I can understand the reasoning behind swapping out Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the twenty dollar bill, but at this point, I feel like they should just leave it as it is. Even though there were bad things he did during his presidency (like not approving of the Bank of the United States), the past is the past. Changing the bill won’t solve the problems he had during his terms in office. And nowadays, less and less people are using dollar bills because of the usage of credit and debit cards in store, gift cards, online shopping, etcetera. So there’s no point in changing something now if not a lot of people are going to use it in the future. Plus, even if the face on the money is changed, it’s not that deep especially because it’s still the same amount of dollars in the bill- twenty dollars. Nothing else would be changing except for the face, so changing it would be unnecessary since the value would still be the same.
I feel like people don’t need to make this a very big deal. Though Harriet Tubman is looked at as a legendary American hero (and I’m not saying that she isn’t deserving of the title; how she helped other slaves during the Civil War is something so brave to do), people in today’s society get triggered by everything, so if Harriet Tubman was to replace Andrew Jackson, then someone out there would find a way to make this a controversy could last for a pretty long time. (Especially since people get so hung up over very little things, they’ll cling onto this “issue” for a good chunk of time. That’s pretty stupid.) So thinking ahead of how people would react if the face on the bill is changed, we can avoid controversy by just LEAVING THINGS THE SAME. IT’S THAT SIMPLE, PEOPLE.
If people want to learn more about Andrew Jackson then just hop on a bandwagon of hatred towards them, they can just pay attention in class. Maybe then they can learn about what he did in the past so that they can deal with seeing his face every time they go to pull out a twenty.
Our society lays a lot of value on how we are viewed by others as well as being worried about offending others. This had led to the removing of monuments, renaming of buildings as well as schools and now the debate if Andrew Jackson should be kept on the $20 bill or not. A process has begun where statues of Confederacy leaders are being taken down in the South. An article, from my Honors English class was written based on Indian tribes taking offense to certain sports teams, like the Washington Redskins, having an Indian as their mascot. In addition to this, the Smithsonian magazine, over 110 confederate monuments have been taken down since 2015. However the American Historical Association mentions that the removing of the statues is not to erase their history but to recall a previous interpretation of history. I agree with this statement, because by the removal of the names or the statues we aren’t forgetting our history we just aren’t honoring them for the reasons they were originally placed. Some people don’t think Jackson is worthy of the title of having his face on the $20 bill because they don’t support his legacy. Many disapprove of him being a slave owner and killing Indians but also they see it as unreasonable to have his face on money because he didn’t even support the Bank. But the people still support Jefferson for all his good deeds even though he was a slave owner. I’m not justifying any of Jackson’s decisions and actions but I am of the belief that Jackson is a vital part of our history and changing the face of our $20 dollar bill would be pointless because it has been this way for over 100 years. I do think that schools and people need to conduct a better education about his legacy. This is a better solution than removing his face from the bill because we have already taken down so many monuments and removing his face might trigger the removal of more monuments. I also have to say that many other historical and significant figures such as Washington and Jackson weren’t always too different from Andrew Jackson and if we’re considering taking Jackson of the face of money, why aren’t we considering any of the others. I think, it is always important to know the full history of our country and its people, including both good and bad deeds but I think that replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman is unnecessary and wouldn’t have any positive influences.
Keeping Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill is not a terrible idea. He has been there for almost 100 years, and to replace him with Harriet Tubman would require the creation of a new engraving plate by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Not only would this create more work for the B.E.P but after we stop printing the bills with Jackson on it, those bills will become collector’s items (similar to the two dollar bill). When the Jackson bills become rare, Americans will glorify/view them as an object someone wants to keep hold of, which is the opposite of what Tubman bill advocates want. We will be unintentionally glorifying Jackson by making his bills rare items if we decide to replace him with Tubman, which is why I support keeping him on the twenty dollar bill.
I don’t believe that replacing Jackson with Tubman is the best option. If we were to replace Jackson, there would be a great pushback from those who thought highly of the president, and it would cause the canyon between the left and right to deepen. We are living in a country where we exhibit a me v. you mentality, and if we were to go through with replacing Jackson, it would cause Republicans (more specifically Trump supporters) to further bash Democrats on being politically correct. This would push Americans further away from civil discourse, which is extremely important today, especially with the approach of the 2020 election. Additionally, by replacing Jackson, we risk a ripple effect of changing the names of things in order to not offend anyone. I believe that if the ripple effect were to occur, which is likely, we would be over scrutinizing people based on their flaws, verses praising their achievements.
Leaving Jackson on the bill while thoroughly explaining his legacy is a good idea. If we were to do this, we would be recognizing the flaws of Jackson’s character without having to reduce his achievements in the process. Everyone has flaws, but at the same time everyone has redeemable qualities, and I think that it would be unfair to erase Jackson from the twenty dollar bill in order to highlight those flaws, when instead we could just teach about them in our classrooms.
I believe that the best option is a compromise in which both Jackosn and Tubman get to be on our currency. I understand that people want their currency to reflect american values and diversity, and I agree with this. However, we don’t have to remove someone else from a bill in order to do that. For example, when the Sacagewea dollar coin was released, I was lucky enough to get a hold of a few. The dollar coin has had many faces on it, including Susan B. Anthony and many presidents. Because the face of the dollar coin is ever changing, and because of the rarity of each edition, I believe that putting Tubman on the dollar coin is a great idea. We could also put her on the $5 bill, the penny, the $1 bill, or the quarter, considering that both Lincoln and Washington are on two kinds of currency. This would be a way to honor an american hero, without bringing anyone else down in the process.
Blog Post #124 Rethinking History or Should Andrew Jackson still be on the $20?
Andrew Jackson is known as a great figure in American history. Not everyone agreed with Jackson’s beliefs but their was still a great deal of people who did agree. Andrew Jackson was a democratic-republican and a “common man.” He lived a difficult childhood losing lots of his family within a short span of time. He moved away from South Carolina and started a family with Rachel Jackson. He was a family man, and cared a lot for women. He had many accomplishments including being a main founder of the democratic party, winning at the War of 1812, and leading a great democracy. Aside from these accomplishments Jackson was at fault in some things especially with dealing with people that weren’t of normal standards such as being a person of color. These people of color would consist of Indians and African Amerians. He had a conflict with people of color solely because he was a slave owner and he created the Indian Removal Acts. The Indian Removal Acts simply stated that he (the president) could negotiate land with Native American tribes and get them to move west of the Mississippi River. This is controversial because he wanted the removal of Indians yet, he adopted an Indian child. Personally, I don’t think there should be time wasted on removing Jackson from the $20 bill. I think that there are more issues to be handled than changing names of buildings or removing Jackson from the bill. The article brings up the fact that Harriet Tumbman should be on the bill instead. I will say that Harriet Tumbman is a very influential person to history but I don’t believe that putting her on a bill will do much of anything. The reading mentions that other presidents that are on money have flaws but nobody really talks about changing it. The example being Abraham Lincoln on the penny and $5 bill. Abraham Lincoln had 30 Indians killed during the Civil War. Lincoln was also a man of great doings. He had a goal to rejoin the United States as one. In order to make that possible, Lincoln created the Emancipation Proclamation and gave the famous Gettysburg Address speech. With these points being taken into consideration, I do believe that the bill should stay as it is and that people should just rethink history as it is.
Whether Andrew Jackson should be kept on the twenty dollar bill is not just an argument of political correctness, but should also be about the potential economic impacts. In 2016 alone, almost 180 million two dollar bills were produced (https://www.moneyfactory.gov/resources/productionannual.html). These bills, however, are being hoarded instead of being spent due to their perceived rareness. This hoarding reduces the amount of money in circulation, limiting the economic power of the notes. Banknotes sitting in someone’s home don’t increase the economic well being of our nation.
Assuming that if new notes were to be printed to replace the current twenty dollar bills, the old notes would be removed from circulation as has happened previously with the hundred dollar bill (although due to security improvements), this would gradually decrease the number of Jackson faced notes available. This would almost certainly, as shown before, increase hoarding of the notes and therefore prevent the notes from circulating in our economy, causing negative impacts. These negative impacts have already been proven in the case of the two dollar bill; a twenty dollar bill would make the negative impacts ten times worse.
One of the only economically feasible methods of creating such drastic changes to the currency of the United States would therefore be to introduce the new faced currency alongside the existing Jackson-faced currency. This would ensure that Jackson-faced notes would not be steadily going out of circulation due to bills being destroyed beyond use (how bills typically exit circulation) or through collectors hoarding the bills. I therefore think that it would not be an educated option to simply swap the face on the bill, without first assessing the potential for economic damages.
Being on any banknote for the United States of America is an enormous honor. As with any high honor, political correctness should be implemented. If we agree, with great majority, that a historical figure is not deserving of being honored verbally, through text, or through other means, why should currency be an exemption. A person’s face on a banknote symbolizes that such person is honored in that country. The US currency is used extensively worldwide, sometimes more than the national currency of the country it’s being used in. By keeping Jackson on the twenty dollar banknote, we send a strong message to the people in our country and to the people in other countries that Andrew Jackson is someone worthy of our honor.
For me, there is not a definite answer about what to do with Jackson’s face being on the twenty dollar bill. In my opinion, he is not worthy of actively received such a high honor, but at what point does the potential economic impact outweigh the morality of a decision. People may not like, or even outright hate, Andrew Jackon being the face of the twenty dollar bill, but would his removal cause our current economy to suffer? Such economic impacts must first be estimated, and costs accounted for in order to make a well informed decision on the fate of our currency. This decision would not just affect a historical monument, but potentially our current economy.
Blog Post #124
Although that Andrew Jackson has been a big contributor to our American history today, there are many people that contributed the same and if not more than Andrew Jackson, and they still do not get recognized for their impactful strides in history.
One of the most influential people that isn’t recognized enough is Harriet Hubman, she led many slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad before the Civil war. Harriet was a slave herself, and when she escaped in 1849 where she sealed freedom in the North and became the greatest conductor of the Underground Railroad. Even after being hunted by white men that were angry with her, she still continued to free hundreds of slaves. Without her work to free slaves before the civil war, history would be completely different.
Andrew Jackson is currently the face of America’s twenty-dollar bill. He was an American war hero, and later got elected as the seventh president of the United States in 1828. His name became known after he had defeated the British in the battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.
In my opinion, Andrew Jackson, even though he had many contributions to American history whether it was during the war of 1812 or during his presidency, he didn’t contribute as many important milestones as Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman started a revolutionary idea, that carried through history, and it represented an idea that caused the civil war, and it is still talked about today.
There have been many causes were what we have done in the past, are not the best decisions for our modern day world. An example of this, is the right to bear arms. Where when the constitution was made that was a reasonable law, but now, with the constant mass shootings in public areas that include schools, that law is not the smartest decision for the American government because of where our society stands today. This is relevant today with all of the equality protests going on today. Not only does Harriet Tubman have a bigger contribution to American history, she also stands out because of her race and gender. She is not a white male like Andrew Jackson and all of the other people represented on the American bills.
Saying this, I believe that on the twenty-dollar American bill Harriet Tubman should replace Andrew Jackson. I think this because of her ideas that not only started a revolution but also changed history for the better, and changed our view on history today, nearly two-hundred years ago.
In my opinion I think that everyone has made mistakes or had their fair share of wrongdoings. In the past our historical figures made choices that in present day would be unthinkable to even consider doing. For instance Abraham Lincon and his execution of 30 indians or Andrew Jackson’s indian removal causing the trail of tears. In a previous assignment we talked about if historical figures should be judged on the good things they accomplished or the horrible choices they have made. Given the time period back then some of their choices were not considered as harshly as now. With the different changes in point of view as the times have changed many people wonder if presidents, or Andrew Jackson should still be considered as honorable and worthy to be on our American money.
I feel as though we shouldn’t take Andrew Jackson off the $20 dollar bill. Even though he has made some unfavorable choices what person hasn’t had their mistakes. Removing him off the bill would make America seem as we are currently a perfect civilization and only represent perfect people. That our founders were perfect that’s why we named cities, buildings, and roads after them. Although if we were to think of it as these are people who shaped our country and showed us what to do and what not to do. That in the past we didn’t treat other races equally which caused much tension in our country, but now we do our best to prevent inequality. That the reason we named these people or represent them is because they gave us guidelines on what was and wasn’t right on our country, and their mistakes should be represented because our country would not at all be the same if these historical figures were perfect, since there’s no such thing as a perfect person in my opinion.
Although there does need to be some change in how we give credit and represent figures. Harriet Tubman for example should be given a place on some type of bill, even if sharing the $20 dollar with Andrew Jackson is a possible outcome. We should also focus on the bad things that happened in our presidents presidency’s to show that yes these presidents had flaws and give hope to a younger generation for better outcomes. It would show a more realistic version and not a filtered version of history.
I believe we don’t necessarily have to replace Andrew Jackson as the face of the $20 bill, but if Harriet Tubman won the popular vote, clearly there is enough of an audience that want things changed. As I mentioned in my Thomas Jefferson portrait, I believe someone can be appreciated for their achievements even if they have some darker moments. Success is often more remembered than failure, and as long as education informs everyone to see the bigger picture, there is nothing wrong with that. Before reports were released, many people had no idea Thomas Jefferson had children with a slave. Similarly, not many people no the extent of Andrew Jackson’s actions. He owned slaves, ordered the execution of deserters during the war of 1812, and forced Native Americans to leave their land. Despite these atrocities, he is mainly remembered for his positive achievements. He was a war hero, defeating the British in New Orleans, ending the war of 1812, he destroyed the national bank, creating a more even economy for the majority of the population, and he created the first democratic party. Some people knock early American heroes for their ownership of slaves, but bear in mind that if they came from a wealthy family, that was simply how things were done. We aren’t going to rename Washington D.C. because Washington owned slaves, we named it that in the first place because he was the general who won us the war, and the first leader of our young nation. The fact that he owned slaves doesn’t make Washington less of a hero. History teachers should do their best to educate students on every aspect of historical figures, including the bad parts. Despite this, if people vote to change the face of a bill, that is up to them. If a majority of people want a freedom fighter on their money, there is no reason it shouldn’t be changed. If a majority would rather have a war hero-turned president, that’s okay too, as long as they know everyone has done bad things and good things. But if we remembered people only by their worst decisions and failures, there would be no heroes.
In my opinion keeping Jackson on the $20 bill would be the best option. Although there may be many things going against Jackson and what he has done in the past, there is also a reason he was put on the bill in the first place. Jackson has been on the bill since 1928 and if we were to take him off it would take up lots of time and resources that we as a country cannot afford to give up. If we take Jackson off the bill, it may be for the better but I don’t think that many people will care about it as much as they should. Many people spend their money without even knowing who is on the bill itself. This goes to show that although taking him off may seem like a good idea, it really isn’t and would be a waste of time and resources.
If we replaced Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman we could cause many issues. Although Jackson did many wrong things during his presidency, removing him from the bill wont change what he did in the past. If we happened to take him off and add Tubman onto the bill there will be a different argument. Tubman was someone who did have a big impact on our country and was a great person but that still doesn’t mean she is perfect. Just like we have found many wrongs during Jackson’s presidency, im sure we could find them with Harriet Tubman as well.
I think that keeping Jackson on the bill would be our best choice. This will let us teach others that making mistakes is okay and that you can still be recognized through those mistakes. It will help us realize and learn more about what he did wrong and what he did right. Keeping him on the $20 bill will allow us to teach others that even if you make mistakes in the past you can still do better in the future and create a better image of yourself. It also will allow us to see that even the people many of us look up to have done many horrible things and we can learn that it’s okay to make mistakes.
I believe that we should keep Andrew Jackson on the $20 for several reasons. The first reason we should keep him on the bill is the length of time he has already been on the bill. Whether you like it or not, the $20 bill is an important cultural item, and changing it to appease the “politically correct” and “woke” people isn’t a good reason. Jackson had significant impacts on the development of American society, and changing the bill would be a dishonor to his presidency and his time period. The second reason that we shouldn’t change the bill is that it furthers the movement of removing historical monuments and changing names of places to stop people from feeling offended. Nobody is saying that what the historical figures did was all good, but these monuments are a testament to American history, and a reminder of the achievements made by these figures. If people wanted to honor another historical figure, nobody is stopping them, but they don’t have to replace someone else to do it.
Putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is a bad idea largely for the same reasons that keeping Andrew Jackson is a good one. Firstly, this idea of replacing Jackson makes the assumption that having Jackson on the bill is a bad thing. Secondly, if people want to honor Harriet Tubman, that’s not a problem. Replacing someone else to do it, however, is.
In regards to teaching more about Jackson, I do think this is a good idea, but I think this should be extended to all presidents. Learning about historical figures from an unbiased perspective and in a nuanced way helps us to understand why things in society are the way they are today, and helps us combat false information that is becoming a big problem with the advent of the internet. I believe that saying that “we should teach more about Jackson” ignores the larger issue with education in America. There are many problems with the current system, especially with regular history classes, which often do not teach with nuance, teach with biases, or don’t teach enough. We should focus on solving those issues instead of focusing on increasing education of just one president.
Throughout the 21st century, a ton of controversy has been raised over the issue of whether Andrew Jackson should be on the 20 dollar bill or not. In my opinion, I don’t think Andrew Jackson should represent our 20 dollar bill and he should be replaced. I think Jackson shouldn’t be on any form of currency because he removed Indians out of their native land, he didn’t support the bank and soft money.
Andrew Jackson wasn’t someone that people should look up too. When people look at a dollar bill, they think “Wow, I want to be like him” but Jackson isn’t a great influence. Andrew Jackson created the Indian removal act in 1830 to kick natives out of their homeland for his benefit. These Native Americans traveled westward through the freezing winter to reach their new land and many died in the process. Nearly 4,000 Indians died on the Trail of Tears due to cold and hunger because they were forced out of their homeland. He also killed many Indians in the Seminole War but this was a situation where the two sides could’ve negotiated things. Andrew Jackson shouldn’t be on our currency because he doesn’t properly represent what the Americans stand for.
Andrew Jackson had a strong hatred towards the B.U.S in the United States. Andrew felt that people were getting credit to easy to buy land out west with paper money. He changed this idea and made sure people would use hard money which led to an economic panic in 1837. Andrew Jackson caused a ton of controversy by plotting and removing banks. He was against paper money but why would he be used to represent it?
Andrew Jackson had many flaws compared to other presidents and they are refused to be represented in a good way. Woodrow Wilson was a man who was for segregation and against blacks, the dorms at Virginia were made not to honor him but the slaves that help build it. Woodrow Wilson showed the same racist traits as Jackson but didn’t face the same consequences. Andrew Jackson is a man who isn’t a great influence on the people living in our country, I think Andrew Jackson shouldn’t be represented on the 20 dollar bill.
Andrew Jackson and Harriet Tubman are just two of the most recognizable names from 19th century America. While Tubman has never been talked about in a negative light, Jackson has polarized communities because of his racial past. Over the years, many people have called for Jackson to be permanently removed from the American $20 bill, citing his racist past of removing Native Americans from their homelands, and being a slave-owner. They want him to be replaced by Harriet Tubman, an influential figure in the Underground Railroad, which helped many slaves escape the horrible place they were in to seek a better life in the north. I believe that Jackson should be kept on the $20 bill and Harriet Tubman’s legacy and impact on the nation should be taught much more in-depth. Jackson has arguably one of the most legendary (good and bad) effects on the nation and deserves to be taught as much as he is in American history classes. People that support having Jackson removed only focus on the bad, and no good, while those who prefer to keep Jackson recognize the good and bad. The truth is, if we wanted to focus on only the bad, no person would be on any bill. Washington wouldn’t be on the $1 and Jefferson wouldn’t be on the $5. They both owned slaves. Shouldn’t they be removed from their respective bills? There is no doubt Harriet Tubman was extremely important in her roles to this country and shaping it today but putting her on the $20 seems like a very big step. If you want to replace anyone, replace Hamilton on the $10 bill. Although his impact is important, his legacy doesn’t hold a candle to Jackson’s. It would be much less controversial, and the change would be well-received. Also, Tubman’s legacy is extremely important, but alas, is not as grand as Jackson’s. Also, Jackson’s legacy on the $20 bill was never a problem until someone pointed out the bad about his legacy. Since the country has been reformed, many historical figures and their legacies have been quieted. Take Robert E. Lee, for example. His legacy was never belittled or demeaned and was important to our history, but in recent times, statues of him have been torn down and he is seen as a horrible person. While Tubman helped our country in so many great, important ways, Taking Jackson off of the $20 bill would be to nullify his legacy.
Leaving Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill would be the best option rather than removing him and replacing him with someone else. This is because Jackson was a significant president that made a lot of changes and shaped our society the way it is now. Adding Hariet Tubman would also break the trend of presidents being on the bill and it would be odd. Also, if we were to remove Jackson from the bill, this could possibly cause a domino effect. Removing Jackson might cause more changes to bills like trying to remove Washington or trying to reduce the amount that schools teach students on Jackson’s presidency. It wouldn’t be fair to remove Jackson for his acts on the indians when we recognize the founding fathers but they were slave owners and didn’t remove slavery. Him being elected also changed the government from supporting the elite to listening and supporting the elite and the common man. We should recognize Jackson and keep him on the bill because his election was a change of an era. Jackson was also a war hero and helped us defeat many battles against the Indians. Hariet Tubman is a powerful figure, but she didn’t affect history as much as Jackson. Jackson had more of an impact on America and there are other ways we can celebrate the 100th anniversary of the amendment. We can teach students more about women and how much rights they had in the past. We can teach students on how the amendment is significant and why its anniversary is very important. There’s no need to remove a hero from the bill to replace someone because of an anniversary. Every person in each dollar bill had cons, it isn’t fair to critique people for the wrong they did and not acknowledge the good. We should recognize the good that Jackson did and not remove him because he was a slave owner. Obviously this wouldn’t please everyone, but us pleasing everyone can cause problems. Eventually, if we keep on trying to please everyone, then we’ll be taken advantage of. The U.S should stick to it’s customs and not remove Jackson from the bill.
I think that having Andrew Jackson replaced with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is a good idea but it should not be a huge debate. The reason why I think having Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is better than having Andrew Jackson is mainly because she has done a lot of good things like helping African Americans escape slavery, and she was a slave herself. Andrew Jackson on the other hand has done many questionable things. Even though he was seen a man of the people and fought in American Wars, he did bad things like the Indian removal act, killing many Indians and forcing them to leave their land and not enforcing the supreme court rulings. He was also very violent, almost as soon as anyone opposed or offended him, he would get in fights or duels with them. Putting somebody on a bill or naming a building/place often honors these people and what they did, and having Andrew Jackon on the dollar bill might make people think that the american government honors and is proud of the things Andrew Jackson did, like the Indian removal act. Some people say that removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 dollars bill is a bad thing because we need to remember history. I think that people are on dollar bills because we think they should be honored and respected for what they have done more than putting them there just to remember what they did, and Andrew Jackson’s presidency can be remembered and learned about in history books. Also, all of the people on dollar bills are white males, and having Harriet Tubman, an African American woman, on any dollar bill, could help promote the equality of race and gender in America. An alternate option to replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubamn could be putting Harriet Tubamn on a new bill, like a 15 or 25 dollar bill. This will make people that want Andrew Jackson on the $20 dollar bill happy and also the people who want Harriet Tubman or a women or African American on a dollar bill.
I think that we should leave Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill but conduct better and more thorough education about his legacy. We shouldn’t erase a part of our history but instead learn about it and make improvements. It is important to learn about the people who helped shape our country, whether it was positively or negatively. Andrew Jackson played a big role in the history of the United States and kids should learn about it. When teaching kids history we should not shield them from the negative parts of history such as Andrew Jackson’s decision to force thousands of Native Americans on the Trail of Tears. Talking about these decisions and revealing the effects they had on people will educate future generations and push them to do better and not let history repeat.
Our history is what shaped the United States into what it is today, and we can’t start erasing or covering up our history. Also, history should not be judged from a twenty-first century point of view. What I mean is that Andrew Jackson was alive during the 1800s and back then things were much different. Things that might have been acceptable then might not be now, and most people were living life as they knew how to. While this is not at all an excuse for the bad decisions people have made in the past, it does provide a different and more accurate way of judging history. When you look back at the time when Andrew Jackson was president he really was a man of the people. He was elected by a popular vote, meaning the majority of Americans wanted him to be their president, also, he represented the average democratic, farming male. Not to mention his great military achievements in the War of 1812, which also helped him relate to the citizens. While people in the United States may view Andrew Jackson now as a bad man whose decisions negatively affected many people, he was seen back then as an honorable man who America voted to be their leader. By removing Jackson from the $20 bill we are erasing a part of our history and as soon as we start doing that we lose a part of what America was and what it is now.
I think Andrew Jackson’s place of the dollar bill should be given to Harriet Tubman. I makes more sense because Andrew Jackson committed numerous actions that in today’s society we wouldn’t see as worthy of this honor. For example, as soon as Jackson was elected as president he began working on the Indian Removal Act. This act led to the Trail of Tears which caused the deaths of an estimated four thousand Cherokee Indians. They died from diseases, malnutrition, and exposure to the harsh, winter weather. Ironically, Jackson didn’t even support the country having a national bank so it makes little sense as to why he is featured on the currency. He devoted a large part of his presidency to ending it. This can be seen in the Bank War with Nicholas Biddle.
During Harriet Tubman’s life, she did many tremendous and honorable feats. Harriet led over 70 people to freedom through the Underground Railroad. During the Civil War, she guided the Combahee River Raid which liberated 700 slaves from South Carolina. In her seventies, she opened an old age home for former slaves. She also opened an infirmary that provided free health care to anyone, black or white. Harriet Tubman didn’t a lot of altruistic things and it is even more impressive when you learn about the racist circumstances of her time period.
I think Harriet Tumban should be on the twenty dollar bill instead of Andrew Jackson. Her accomplishments outway Jackson’s and I feel that she is more deserving of the placement than he is. We should still learn about Andrew Jackson and acknowledge that he did he both good and bad things for our country. We shouldn’t erasing him, or other historical figures like him, from history, instead we should still learn from the mistakes that they made. We should compare their actions to things that are currently happening in the country, so we can stop these mistakes from happening again. Places of honor, such as the currency or on buildings, should be given to different people. People like Harriet Tubman, who fit our modern view of a hero.
Keeping Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill would still be a good idea. Changing the bill would be a good thing as well, but I feel like its to big of a hassle to do that. We already know what he did during his presidency which includes kicking out all of the Native tribes living in America. He also kept slaves, he used the veto power excessively. He used the veto more than Washington, Adams, and Jefferson combined. Knowing these things, many people would say that he was an awful man and that he does not deserve to be on the bill. Yes I agree with that, but thinking about, it wouldn’t change anything. He did all these bad things yet we can’t do anything about them. Overall, changing the $20 bill would be a good idea, but it would take too much work to finalize it.
Changing the $20 bill could be a good idea as Harriet Tubman was a very influential person. She was an escaped slave that fled her plantation. She would go back to save her family and help them escape. She kept doing this and inspired others. She later helped in the Civil war as a cook and a nurse. She had a major role in slavery. With that being said, changing the bill could be a good idea in which we are showing our diversity and representing women. Although changing the bill could take some time and cause some people to get upset with changing it from Jackson, I feel like it could be a good idea. This obviously would take a long time which is why not everyone is with it, but if they get the majority of the popular vote, I believe that we should change the $20 bill to Harriet Tubman.
If we do decide to keep Jackson on the bill, then I believe we should do something for Harriet Tubman. If we have to add her to a coin to a dollar coin which has many faces. This would be a way to help everyone be happy as they both get to be on something. We can’t just take someone off the bill, that is like erasing them out of our textbooks and our history. We should teach kids about Jackson and what he did as president, good and bad. We should also teach them about his good qualities like the war of 1812. Overall, I believe that we should keep Andrew Jackson of the $20 bill, and add Harriet Tubman on a dollar coin or another bill like the $5 or penny sense Lincoln is on both.
some people like the Treasury’s idea to honor an important woman with a spot on one of the most commonly used bills of America’s currency.Jackson didn’t even like paper money. Jackson closed the second Bank of the United States. Jackson prefered hard money. Yet he is on are 20 dollar bills? During Jackson’s presidency there were alot of panic depression and economic problems. So why should we celebrate him on are money? Not to mention are 7th president was a races. He hated Native Americans and loved having slaves. The only people he treated right were the whites/ caucasian. Andrew Jackson didn’t acknowledge the rights of Native Americans. When the Cherokee tribe was being threatened by the state of George to leave their land, they sued the state in the supreme court case of “Worcester v Georgia”. They won their rights as a sovereign nation, meaning neither Georgia or the United States had the right to enforce laws over them. With the introduction of the “Indian Removal Act”, Jackson completely ignored this ruling. He was straight up disrespect to the Cherokee Nation underscores the inappropriateness of his presence on our currency in a modern, more enlightened era.But Harriet Tubman on the other hand would be a better choice. She was an ex slave led 300 other slaves to freedom. Andrew Jackson literally committed a genocide.Andrew Jackson led 4,000 Native Americans to death formally known as the Trail of tears. Harriet Tubman was celebrated across American but Andrew Jackson is only really spoken about in text books. In America there are 14 memorials of Harriet Tubman. Maybe the best known and the bravest black women in history. To be placed on an America bill is a great honor. The honor should be given to someone who earns it,those who changed our nation for the better. By replacing Andrew Jackson with a woman, it shows the progress the United States has made towards becoming a more civilized and equal nation. While Andrew Jackson represents our past, women like Susan B. Antony and Harriet Tubman pointed the way towards our future, one of growing equality and the civil rights every citizen of this nation deserves.
Brennen Vechazone
In my opinion, I say we keep Andrew Jackson on the $20 dollar bill because in all honesty, that is the easiest and smartest option to do now. In the world, there are so many $20 dollar bills and it would be near impossible and a havoc to switch and convert them all to someone new. Also, if you were to change the face of a currency in general and replace it with someone new, this could also start a controversie as well. Harriett Tubman was a very important part in our history and during the slavery and the Underground Railroad for an example. But Andrew Jackson was also very influential with our history and the nation back then. Andrew Jackson was very into the economy of the nation back then, even though he was opposed to the idea of the 2nd Bank of the United States and getting into a fight with Nicolas Biddle, he was still our president and many key roles in our government, good and bad.
Even though Harriett Tubman did so much in American history and considered an American hero and idol. Although if you switch the $20 dollar bill from Jackson to Tubman, it isn’t giving either of them justice. This is because even though Harriett Tubman led the huge movement of the Underground Railroad and helping slaves escape, she had a huge bounty and threatened the slaves she was helping save with shooting them or with a knife if the slaves decided to go back to their plantations and slave owner. This applies the same for Andrew Jackson as well. He was apart of killing thousands of Indians which were men, women and children in a part of the Indian removal off their own lands. He was also apart of not having a second BUS and having a dispute about it with Nicolas Biddle. But he also adopted a refused and unwanted Indian child and took him in as his own. All in all, both of them had so much political and historical influence but for no hassle and troubles, we should just keep Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 dollar bill.
Lastly, I say we just teach the students about both of these figures in social studies and just keep Jackson on the $20 dollar bill. This is because schools can teach about the good and bad things Jackson did and why his good deeds is why he deserved to be on the face of the of $20 dollar bill. It will also teach them about influential Harriet Tubman was and how she was also nominated to be on the $20 dollar bill and the influence she caused in history.
3. As history unfolds, it is becoming more and more evident that our ‘American Heroes’ or even founding fathers may have had shady or even questionable pasts. These pasts for the most part have hid behind the great shadows of many admirable political figures. However, recently people have been coming together to take down or rename buildings, monuments, etc, because of what they stood for when they were created. For example, many of the Confederate memorials that were put up during the 19th and 20th centuries are being taken down. This is because many of them symbolized white supremacy and were purposefully put up to “intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life.” The removal or renaming of these types of historical sites is justifiable because several people realized that a multitude of these sites represented a period in history that favored certain people, not to mention treated the unfavorable unjustifiably, because of what they looked like. In the case of removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replacing him with another historical hero like Harriet Tubman, I believe that we should leave him on the bill, but in the future, teach about Andrew Jackson’s full being that came along with his legacy. Although Jackson not only rid thousands of Native Indians of their home, owned several innocent beings he deemed as slaves, and had a terrible temper, he was also a widely known war hero, he further established our country and stood for the importance of the power of the people. Because of these reasons (and many more) he has been recognized on the $20. Even as Harriet Tubman was an excellent woman that embodied many positive and powerful symbols, so were many other people since the beginning of history. There is no such thing as a perfect human being. I believe as long as a person reflects positive and just actions they are eligible to be credited for their contributions. I think it would be beneficial for school systems to talk about the rough patches our popular political figures went through. This not only pictures them as a more realistic human being, but also teaches people that everyone has flaws no matter how admirable they may be or have been.
I think that option 2, replacing Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill and continue to teach about Jackson, is the better option of the trio Although both are historically important to America, Harriet Tubman would be a more positive figure to have on our currency. If she is on our $20 bill, and Andrew Jackson is still being taught in history classes, future students are more likely to know the importance of both rather than one more than the other (typically Andrew more than Tubman). It could encourage our future generations to do good and be remembered for your bravery, while learning from the mistakes of those who are remembered for their wickedness.
History is everywhere and is the most important foundation for any country. Andrew Jackson was not the best person, to say the least. He owned up to 300 slaves and further oppressed the Native Americans via the Indian Removal Act. An ethnic cleansing, even considered a genocide, the Trail of Tears killed up to 4,000 Native Americans due to cold and cruel conditions on the path. Jackson forced them from their land and had soldiers take them to small land reservations unwanted by the white settlers. Despite providing one of the darker moments in history for America, we need to teach about him. We should remain teaching about him because it may help to avoid choosing another president who wishes to oppress cultures and ethnicities other than the white population. In the modern-day, we consider Jackson to have been a cruel man, so why is he on our currency? We simply haven’t taken him off, and we nearly replaced him with Harriet Tubman. We should carry out that replacement because Tubman is a hero in all respects, helping so many escape the cruel and deadly life of slavery. She risked her own life to lead others to freedom in the North, helping escaped slaves hide in houses of those who trusted Tubman’s efforts. As she conducted the Underground Railroad, she saved the people of our country. Many escaped men would later join the Union in efforts to abolish slavery totally. Without Tubman, slavery in the states could have possibly still existed today, as at least 750 slaves would have never escaped.
Harriet Tubman was a leader for a greater cause, and her legacy should be more immortalized on the $20 bill. Andrew Jackson was a leader for worse causes, and his mistakes of cruelty should be taught to avoid them occurring again.
This is something I’ve been thinking about a bit. The best reason to remove Andrew Jackson is because of his policies that infringed on native american’s rights and ultimately killed many of them. Teaching history without sugar coating it would be the best solution. He did some good things like in the decisive victory in the war of 1812 and he has done bad. Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, but that shouldn’t remove him from the bill. Like most wealthy people of that time he owned slaves. It is now universally accepted that slavery is bad, but at the time slavery was common place. Many of the U.S’s early leaders owned slaves and they are still considered great for their other policies so Andrew Jackson owning slaves shouldn’t have a large effect on how he is viewed. His treatment and policies for native americans were abhorrent. This is something that should be taught. It is a scar on the country that we need to learn from. You can acknowledge something is bad without getting rid of the figure from the public. If he is taken off and people forget or aren’t taught what happens it doesn’t erase what happened. The actual process of changing the bill would take a long time. They have to make a new bill that is impervious to counterfeiting. Honestly keeping him on our paper money is an insult to him so he should stay. When you are educated on what he has done you realise that in honoring him on paper money you are insulting what Andrew Jackson stood for. By keeping him on the bill not only are acknowledging the good he did, but spitting on his reputation. If a woman were to be put on a bill for the anniversary of the nineteenth amendment someone more related to the nineteenth amendment should be picked like Jeannette Rankin who opened congressional debate on an amendment for women’s suffrage which eventually became the nineteenth amendment. Or Elizabeth Cady Stanton who held the first women’s rights convention in 1848. And maybe Lucy Burns who was the suffragist to spent the most time in jail being arrested six times.
Personally, I agree with keeping Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, he has made many improvements that has progressed the country in ways that should be remembered and recognized. His accomplishments during his time as president, such as his victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans, were extremely important in leading America and would eventually be taught in american history. Although he does have some controversial aspects of him that threaten his image, such as his slave ownership, and his decision to adopt an indian boy even after passing the infamous Indian Removal Act, you cannot ignore the many benefits that came from his terms as president. There are ideas of replacing Jackson’s spot on the the $20 bill with another well known figure in American history, Harriet Tubman. Although I see the purpose of this, I can’t agree, Harriet Tubman was indeed a great american figure who led slaves to freedom via the underground railroad, however I don’t feel like she deserves to replace Andrew Jackson’s spot on the bill. With her having so much impact on the future of slavery, she should have atleast occupied another spot such as the $2 bill when it was still popularly used. So, we should keep Jackson on the $20 bill, not to be replaced by Harriet Tubman, who deserves her own recognition. But Jackson’s bad side shouldn’t be ignored, I believe that we should make his slave ownership and indian adoption better known by teaching it in school if he is going to remain on our $20 bill. If we do end up replacing Jackson with Tubman on the $20 bill, how would Jackson’s figure be represented? I don’t think it’s enough just to have him show up in textbooks and worksheets, after all he was a great man who led our country in a desperate time, and he definitely deserves to be recognized. Leaving him on the $20 bill would be the best for him because it is so widely used by all Americans, who are reminded of Andrew Jackson’s brilliance every time they pay with a $20 bill.
I believe that despite Andrew Jackson’s several issues during his presidency, he should remain on the twenty dollar bill. Andrew Jackson was an important leader in our history, despite the controversy. Also, attempting to replace the Jackson twenty dollar bill with a Tubman twenty dollar bill, would cause issues in circulation.
Andrew Jackson obviously had major issues during his campaign, the most prominent problem being his decision of forcing the Indian Removal Act. This was a huge stain on his presidency, however, we need to recognize this. Jackson is considered to be a pioneer in politics, with further advancing the president’s role in the government. Andrew Jackson was a war hero, who was the representative of the common man. He also was the forefront of the democratic movement in America. Thus, although he has extreme flaws, he was a important political figure who shaped the United States today.
The economic issues with replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the twenty dollar bill can end up being a large problem as well. Fazing out the old Jackson twenty would end up causing the outdated bill to become a a collectors item, and cause issues very much like the two dollar bill. Instead of the money being spent and sent back into circulation, it would be withheld.
However, I do believe it is important to address the accomplishments of Harriet Tubman, because it is so highly important they be recognized. Harriet Tubman was a driving force in the movement for freedom and equality, and she risked her life to save so many others. Despite this, I believe we must find other ways to remember and recognize her, rather than replacing another prominent political figure. There are multiple ways to do this, and I believe many better alternative choices.
This debate between whether or not is deeply rooted in the issue of comparing the past and the present. This situation is extremely similar to the controversy with other prominent figures, like Thomas Jefferson. This brings up the importance of education. Properly educating the people about our history and the people a part of it is absolutely crucial. We never want to completely vanquish someone’s accomplishments based off of their weaknesses, nor the other way around. We can not pretend as if Andrew Jackson was the perfect president, along with idolizing other figures. Despite this, we can not turn a blind eye to how they have shaped our world and how we live today.
Thus, I believe that Andrew Jackson should stay on the twenty dollar bill.
It is ridiculous to demand for every notable figure from American history to be perfect in order to have sculptures, memorials, or buildings named after them, but certain figures do not deserve to have modern architecture, bills, or other things dedicated to them. While it’s hard to draw the line in a situation where many former Americans held slaves, or partook in other dealings that would now be frowned upon, certain members of American society were so awful that it’s hard to validate them as positive forces.
One of these “notable figures” is seventh U.S. president and the face of the $20 bill, Andrew Jackson. In recent years, Jackson’s place on the $20 bill has been called into question as his past dealings with Indians are seen as horrendous. Jackson’s presence on the $20 bill has rightfully created a feeling of discontent among many Americans, and has introduced the idea of changing the $20 bill. This issue doesn’t have that many solutions, as there isn’t much they can do other than leave the bill as it is, change the face, or leave him and more thoroughly teach about his wrongdoings.
I disagree that we should keep Andrew Jackson’s face on the $20 bill. Regardless of whether we are taught more about him or not, he still led what is essentially a genocide against the thousands of Indians living in America during the early 1800’s. Not only was he awful to Indians, he also practically stole Florida from Spain and killed hundreds in his attempt. While Jackson seemingly had a complex relationship with racism, he still was responsible for thousands of Indian deaths, which cannot be forgiven, especially by the ancestors of those Indias. It’s insensitive to have a mass murderer of much of a population that still exists in the U.S. to be the face of our currency. Also, ironically enough, he didn’t even support banks and was in favor of hard money, and he himself probably wouldn’t have been happy at his immortalization by way of soft money.
I think the best solution is to replace Andrew Jackson entirely with Harriet Tubman. Not only would she be the first woman to be on our currency, she arguably had a much more positive impact on America than Andrew Jackson did. Jackson should be left to history teachers to discuss as he clearly was an influential person who changed the way our government ran, but had so many flaws that they greatly outweighed his positive attributes.
In my opinion, I think that the United States should just keep Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill . It would cause too much of a problem to change the design of the bill and would probably cost our country money it could spend on something that could truly benefit others, not a new 20$ bill. Even though he may not have done some of the greatest things, he still deserves the recognition for being an influential political figure, and it would cause too much of a change, everyone is already used to him being on the bill, why change now? Although I do believe that it could be a good idea to put Harriet Tubman on a dollar bill, maybe we could put her on a new type? or a more rare kind, like the two dollar bill, something that would make less of a change than putting her on a twenty dollar bill, which has been around with Jackson’s face on it since 1928. In my opinion, after learning about Jackson, I think that having Harriet Tubman would be a better option, but it would most likely cause issues with some people and would create unnecessary conflicts, which isn’t really something the country needs. Even though keeping Jackson on the twenty dollar bill would be a smarter choice, people should still be educated on the good, but also the not so good things that he did during his lifetime. People should recieve a more thorough education about all of his actions, and remember not to follow in the majority of his footsteps. Knowledge is very important, and having an UNBIASED education on him, allowing you to make your own personal opinions, is the best option. Seeing all he did wrong, could allow people to think about it every time they see a twenty dollar bill, and hopefully it can help america to learn from Jackson’s mistakes and never repeat the things he has done again. This country needs to remember who he was and how influential of a man and politician he was throughout his career, but we can’t let that make us look over and forget all of his wrongdoings.
To keep Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill and not talk about him and his actions makes no sense. He has done many controversial things that have shaped our country. If Andrew Jackson stays on the twenty dollar bill we have to talk about what he has done, good and bad. Some reasons for him to stay on the bill is because of his military prestige like in the Battle of New Orleans. Another reason is that being on the thing he hates is post-mortem punishment for the bad things he did.
Many people wanted to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriot Tubman for the 100 anniversary of the 19th amendment. I can see why people would want to replace Andrew Jackson, but I do not see why it should be Harriot Tubman. She is very important in American history, but Harriet Tubman is known for her freeing of slaves not helping with the women’s suffrage movement. If you are doing it in honor of the 19th amendment the there are a lot of better choices and I think the best one is Jeannette Rankin.
Jeannette Rankin was a women’s suffrage activist and the first congress woman. She was elected to the House of Representatives in Montana in 1916 four years before the ratification of the 19th amendment. Jeannette Rankin was one of the founding members of the Committee on Women’s Suffrage. In 1918 Jeannette Rankin opened congressional debate on a constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote. The resolution made it through the House but not the Senate that year, but the next year, after Jannette Rankin’s congressional term had ended, the resolution passed in both the House and the Senate.
Not only was Rankin an amazing women’s rights activist but she was also a pacifist. She was one of the 50 representatives to vote against going to war with Germany in World War One and, in her second term, the only person to vote against going to war against Japan in World War Two.
If Andrew Jackson is going to be replaced the best person to replace him is Jeannette Rankin. She was the first congress woman who played an important role in the creation of the 19 amendment and a pacifist.
I believe that ideally, we should replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. However, I think that it is way too late to make any changes to the bill and just keep Jackson on it due to the fact that we have had it for so long and possibly making a change would spark an unnecessary debate. If we look at this from a different perspective, Harriet Tubman obviously contributed more to reforming and improving our society than Jackson did during his presidency. Examples of some of the things Harriet Tubman did would be freeing thousands of slaves using the escape system known as the “Underground Railroad. This was a method of using homes, mostly of abolitionists, to move escaping slaves from the south to the safety of the north ans Canada.” Tubman also housed many slaves and freed as many as she could. In his time as president, Jackson caused chaos within the banking system, the Supreme Court, and with many of his political enemies. He even had to dismantle his own cabinet due to his poor behavior and judgment. Going deeper into this claim, Jackson destroyed the economy with his banking system shenanigans, and his intent to kill them, eventually leading to one of the worst depressions the country had ever gone through. The main problem in this situation is that if we remove him from our history, we are dooming ourselves to repeat his errors in the future. I believe that as bad as his presidency and character were, we are too far in history to remove him and replace him. I understand that some people would want Harriet Tubman on the 20$ bill. Again, it would be ideal, but we have had Andrew Jackson on the 20$ bill for so long, that trying to make a change now would spark a long and unnecessary debate that shouldn’t belong in this category. Would liken Jackson’s presidency to our current presidency and Donald Trump. Like Jackson, Trump is making a mess that will take several presidents to correct. Yet the moment we forget what Trump is doing, we are destined to repeat it. Know it, remember it, do not forget it.
In my opinion the best option would be to keep jackson on the $20. The situation we face with jackson being on the 20 dollar bill is vastly different than that of the confederate flag being taken down in south carolina. The history behind the confederate flag is much more offensive to many more people than simply jackson’s face being on a piece of currency. Another reason it is different from the confederate flag in south carolina it to deal with the flag issue all they have to do is just take it down. With the currency issue they would have to make all new money and new prints to do so. It would also take a long time before the 20 dollar bills with jackson on them would no longer be in use because the citizens would still have, and use them. Keeping him on the 20 dollar bill put weighs all of the other options giving simply because it is the easiest thing to do. I think that nothing jackson did was jurassic enough for him to be removed from the bill. If they voted for jackson to be on the bill in the first place and won then there is no reason they should take him off. It feels as though the cons of him being on the bill are not nearly significant enough to take him off the bill. Now more than ever people like to blow things out of proportion and make things into way bigger deals than they actually are. Nowadays people barely use cash due to credit cards and online banking. When you do end up using cash you never stop and think who is on your money or why. This is because it really is not that big of a deal to the majority of americans who use cash. The government could and should be spending their time on things that are much more useful instead of deciding on if they should take andrew jackson of the 20 dollar bill or not. In all my final thought is that they should leave jackson on the 20 dollar bill
Switching Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill is a great idea not because Jackson was flawed, (as all men are), but because, it would be amazing to honor a woman who was also important in history. Not one woman is found on any currency and this seems ridiculous. It isn’t difficult to change the money and therefore, it seems like a perfect way to honor various Americans throughout history Basically, give someone else a turn. Many argue that switching Jackson with Tubman will lead to taking away all of the notoriety from Jackson. Replacing Jackson with Tubman, however, doesn’t mean that we aren’t honoring Jackson, it simply means we are giving another influential person a chance at a proper legacy. It’s not like we are removing Jackson from all of history, we still discuss him in class and we will still continue to uphold his legacy, we are just giving Tubman the recognition she deserves. It doesn’t necessarily have to be about whether or not Jackson was good or bad, it can simply be about honoring someone else. Jackson has had his fair share of faults and wrongdoings, as well as many other honored politicians and he has had his fair share of time on the bill as well. Replacing him wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world, however, I understand the point that doing so could lead to replacing multiple flawed politicians which is not what I am suggesting. Much like the article discussed it isnt about erasing history but rather, altering it to allow for new and progressive ideals. Jackson had his flaws and he was still honored with the 20 dollar bill, we aren’t taking away the bill for his actions but rather giving it to someone who is possibly more or just as deserving of the honor. This doesn’t mean that all presidents honors will be replaced with someone more deserving and I see how this could turn into a “slippery slope argument”, I simply think that it is only right to give someone else an opportunity to be honored without erasing the other influential person. When I consider the fact that a woman has never been honored by being on any currency, I feel even stronger that it is time for that to change.
The United States is still fairly new country, but being as young as it is we still have a lot of history. and not all of our country’s history is pretty however, that does not mean we should neglect it. I believe that we should leave Jackson on the 20 dollar bill. Yes, it is true he owned slaves, and he passed the Indian removal act which kicked out a race of people that had been here long before us, but none of our presidents have been perfect, and they will continue to be imperfect. imperfection is part of being human, but we decided to put him on the twenty dollar bill weather people like it or not, taking him off the bill would be neglecting a part of our history.
If we were going to start taking people off our dollar bills for not being perfect in today’s standards, every face on every bill would have to be replaced. As time goes on, our standards will change, this could lead to the reprinting of money every century. We shouldn’t keep glossing over part of history. Most, if not all of our presidents, predating the CivilWar, owned slaves. And Lincoln even had native americans executed during the civil war, and he is thought to be of the most liked president in our history.
Trying to gloss over our history isn’t fair to all the people that worked for us to be here. Our history is messy, maybe one of the messiest, but it’s our history. Our country has not had an easy time letting go of its “old ways”, slavery, segration, racisum, and homophobia, but as much as we like it or not thats part of our history. And when you look at far we have come as a country, we feel proud. There is also a sense that we still need to keep moving forward, remembering the bad and learn from it. Our history will teach us how to get better, but if we are painting over the bad, we will never get better. Jackson should remain on the twenty dollar bill because he is a part of history, our messy and unclean history, but he helped get us to where we all stand now.
Historical monuments, I feel, are very important in honoring some of those who have done amazing things in history. I also believe historical monuments are important to remind us of events that happened in the past. When it comes to dealing with Jackson being on the $20, we see a few options on how to deal with this issue.
One option is that we could leave Jackson on the $20 bill and do nothing else. Jackson had many flaws throughout his presidency that are not acceptable in today’s time whatsoever. I think that practically ignoring the problem is not in this situation or frankly any other, a good idea. With that said i do not think this would be a good solution because if there is nothing said many americans will remain clueless to the ideals of Jackson.
Another option is that we swap Jackson out for Harriet Tubman and just talk about Andrew Jacson in history class. This addresses the problem a little better because they are taking the less deserving person off and putting on a courageous, strong woman. This would also be very cool due to the fact of having a woman on one of our bills. Although, I still feel this is not the best solution because we would lose the opportunity of better learning from the $20 and realize the flaws in our country’s leaders.
The last option is Leave him on the bill but conduct better and more thorough education about Andrew Jackson’s legacy. In my opinion, I feel this method would be the most impactful and beneficial thing for our country’s citizens. Leaving him on the bill provides us with a learning experience and a constant reminder of americas imperfections and corrupt leaders. Also, i dont think a monument always has to be an honoring thing but more of a thing to remind us of worse times and to avoid repeating them. With that said, I do feel our education needs to better teach us about the mistakes we have made so we can learn from our mistakes and hopefully never repeat them.
1. We also have to keep in mind, that many other faces on our paper currency, George Washington on the $1 dollar bill, and Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill all owned slaves as well. Yet we aren’t calling for a change on them. The process of removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill would focus too heavily on that subject, and not allow for more pressing matters to be addressed.
2. Harriet Tubman, one of the most respected, black, female abolitionists of her time, is an extremely important figure as a symbol of resistance of slavery. She deserves all the recognition in the world. Jackson being the head of the bill is wrong. You can’t justify his egregious acts with his accomplishments as president. We can’t disregard Jackson’s atrocities and commemorate him for his accomplishments as a validation for leaving him on the bill. The accomplishments of our founding fathers was established on the backbones of slaves. So how can you morally justify him remaining on the bill, if his accomplishments couldn’t be done without the help of slaves.
3. But the question about having her replace Jackson is also debatable. Leaving Jackson on the bill is acceptable only if we open the discussion, to acknowledge his success as well as his faults. Jackson is known for many of his faults during his eight year presidency, including the Indian Removal Act, authorizing the removal of tons of slaves from their homes, and owning as many as 300 slaves. People look at that and see it as a component for removal. Jackson owned slaves when slavery was widespread throughout the country and seen as a form of income. As society reforms itself, we look back on slavery, and see it as the most degrading form of imprisonment ever established. The fact that many of our heros, were involved in such horrible things, is appalling and extremely saddening. But they also heavily contributed to the fundamentals of our government today. We need to continue to learn as much as we can about our founding fathers, not just his accolades, but the full truth about his legacy.
In this day and age we are taught to honor and learn about those from the past. But what if those influential people that we look up to have done things that are now not accepted? Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and so did George Washington. Andrew Jackson not only owned slaves but he also forced the Indians out of their homeland. So does this mean we should rename the capital, and hate these people? We live in a time where racism is most definitely not acceptable. So why do we still learn about and Idolize these people? These people who we consider our founding fathers, shaped America into what it is today. Yes they did horrible awful things, but they also lead our people to victory, claimed new territory, and created the very constitution which we live by today. Because of the accomplishments of these leaders they should still be respected. Thus Andrew Jackson should not be taken off the $20 bill but we should teach a more thorough and realistic explanation of his life. Taking him off the bill would take time and resources that are much needed elsewhere. It would also disrespect his hard work and victories during his presidency. I think it is important for people to understand the horrible things that Jackson did because they are a part of the story of our country and that in the end renaming and removing all of these things is just ignorance. We can’t just simply remove and rename our past just because it’s not pretty and perfect. This is why history repeats itself.
I personally feel that we should exercise option number two; keeping Jackson on the dollar would not be representative of America’s progress. Option number one wouldn’t change anything and I’m sure others would not warrant much of a response as the other options. I’m sure people would forget about the debate instantly, however I do feel it will come into question every time Andrew Jackson is a topic of discussion. As the generations become more educated on the atrocities of the past it’ll be unavoidable. Not specifically the twenty-dollar bill, but honoring hero whose actions are not ethical in today’s terms. It’s already been shown in certain monuments being changed and buildings having their names switched. Option one would possibly only stall the conversation. Option two, however, does the opposite. It opens debate for handling figures who are now viewed differently. A plus of this option is that it would show people that we do not celebrate nor do we honor ignorance and racism. A downside would be giving the impression that rethinking history will only lead us to “changing it” in the form of altering things. And in order to prevent switching between symbols, we would have to be sure that the original individuals are seemingly perfect in today’s standards and in the following years to come. While approaching option three I have come to realize that that is possibly the best of them all, not number two. The last option allows for people to be further educated and to make a point of acting on our improvements. It also makes it so that we can avoid the difficulties of changing the dollar. As stated before, changing the face of the bill could send the wrong message. It could open up the chance for a slippery slope to take place. The Confederate monuments were justified as those ideals shouldn’t be glorified in that manner or at all publicly as that doesn’t represent our country. In conclusion, the third proposal gives the best of both worlds. It lets us correct our faults of the past while avoiding the obstacles and misinterpretations (as well as the fears of a possible slippery slope).
I believe that things our nation has done in the past should be owned and recognized as an American society. Generally, I think historical monuments should be kept as a teaching point because nobody is perfect, so why should our nation be? I agree with the article Rethinking History because we can all reflect on flawed individuals and choices to better ourselves. That being said, even though I might not agree Jackson should be kept on the 20 dollar bill, I think he should remain there because the controversy of deciding who should be the replacement could overpower his wrongdoings. So many influential figures deserve to be on the bill, so how can we choose just one?
Therefore, I agree with concept number one, but also with number three because even though Jackson fought in the War of 1812 and represented the common man, his reputation should not be glorified because of how negatively he treated people with different skin colors of his and how he disrespected the bank. History classes should not leave out this critical information because it is something that people can learn from and it makes Jackson who he is. You’re supposed to own up to your mistakes, so Andrew Jackson should too. Presidents lives are exposed when they step into office and they are well aware a spotlight will be placed on them, so their actions consequently are publicized and remembered.
I disagree with option number two because with everything Jackson has done wrong, we shouldn’t just cover it up. Harriet Tubman was a remarkable woman and did the most heroic of gestures for our country such as helping slaves escape through the underground railroad, but no matter who was being proposed to be put on the bill, I would still sway towards keeping Jackson because of tradition and not covering up our mistakes. Hiding something from others you don’t want to be known is often frowned upon because it seems suspect and like you’re ashamed of an action you don’t want others to know about, so hiding one of America’s historical figure’s pasts, especially a president, is seen by other people as suspicious even though we’re showing that we as a country have learned from our past actions.
I think leaving Jackson on the 20 dollar bill is not a bad idea. In the world today many people are making the argument that Jackson should be taken off the 20 dollar bill and replaced with Harriet Tubman and I can see why people argue this but I don’t think we should. A question that came up in a previous blog was whether we should judge someone on there greatest accomplishments. And I think this is important to think about. Harriet Tubman is seen as an American legend and she should be but if we were to take Jackson off the 20 dollar bill that would disregard all the things Jackson did for our country. Jackson was a war hero and developed a democracy that was better for the common man.
I also think that it isn’t worth taking Andrew Jackson off the 20 dollar bill. There would need to be a lot of time a resources put in to Make the change. that would involve creating a new bill designing it and putting a stop to current Andrew Jackson bills being printed. Doing this would add more popularity to the Andrew Jackson bills because if they were to stop being printed then they would become rare and glorify the bills when the real purpose is to put shame on the actions of Andrew Jackson. If a goal that is trying to be accomplished is to dishonor Jacksons actions then I believe a better alternative would be to teach the Jacksonian era differently. Instead of hiding or pushing aside what Jackson did, Shine more light onto the horrible things he did towards native Americans. I do still think that it would still be necessary to still talk about Andrew Jacksons accomplishments and not let his mistakes cast a shadow of dishonor over those accomplishments. I also think that if we were to switch the 20 dollar bill to Harriet Tubman then it would just bring more recognition to Harriet Tubman and not inform people of Jacksons actions. I also think Harriet Tubman deserves more recognition in our school system today.
Keeping Jackson on the $20 bill would just keep things the same. It wouldn’t really cause much conflict with most people. Most people in America don’t even know what’s on paper bills. The talk about it in 2015 and 2017 has mostly died down since then. Leaving him on the bill and constructing a better and more thorough education about Jackson is a great idea. Not just for Jackson, but for all American history taught in schools. Taking Jackson off the $20 bill because of his actions during his presidency is hypocritical. If you take Jackson off because of his actions you would have to do this with everyone who has made poor decisions and unethical behavior in American history. I don’t think keeping Jackson on the bill will make things better or worse. Changing the bill won’t solve the country’s centuries’ worth of problems. Teaching more about him will allow everyone to understand what he did positive or negative during his life. It will create a more educated America and can help to fix future problems like were established in the past. I believe putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill will be a way to put another American leader on something people see almost every day. I don’t think if they take Jackson off I would want it to be for a negative reason. I would want it to be a positive thing putting an African American woman on the $20 bill. To show that the “founders” and huge impactors of our country are not just white men. It’s another way to represent the minorities in the country and that they have also left an inspirational and impactful footprint on America history to make it the way it is today. Another option would be putting Harriet Tubman on the $2 bill or something like that. I just think that the thought of putting another American leader especially someone who is not a white male allows for the change in American society to be seen more. Keeping Jackson on the $20 bill would be fine, but Tubman possibly being on a bill would be a nice change for Americans to see.
My opinion on renaming buildings, statues, and other types of monuments after certain people is as follows. We need to focus on what were the values of the person we are honoring, and what are the reason why we’re celebrating that person. For instance, there is a direct difference between Jefferson memorial and a statue of Robert E. Lee. Yes Lee was an excellent general, and a key part of the U.S. civil war, but he stood for white people owning black people, in one of the greatest atrocities in the history of western civilization. Jefferson on the other hand, while he did own and profit off of slaves, he clearly stood for liberty, equality, and justice, values that we still stand for today. No modern politician would stand up and say that we should own other people, and only the most racist people, who are fed that lie from birth, would accept it.
I also find it so idiotic that, when a monument is tared down, people complain that the government is taking away their history. This is utterly stupid. People don’t learn from monuments, they learn from books, school, Ken Burns documentaries, and museums. Monuments are used to idolize certain figures, and to tell people what that nation represents. One example, the statue of liberty is a universal symbol for American ideals like freedom and equality. I mean it’s not hard to wrap one’s head around. There are no statues of Hitler in Germany, but if ask a german citizen who ran their country between 1933-1945 they’re not going to say the Kaiser. Monument are solely used to show a nation’s values, so we need to ask ourselves, are the values of slave owners, that values of American?
Honestly I don’t care about Andrew Jackson being on the 20 dollar bill. I doubt a Native American, or a bank worker feel the same way about using a 20 dollar bill then a black person does when passing Stone Mountain (a large monument to Confederate generals). So it doesn’t really matter to me if he stays or goes. What does matter is that people are learning about Jackson’s actions, motives, and ideals, not his face.
Rethinking and changing historical monuments is an issue that has caused many modern controversies. One of these controversies that has been created due to this is if Andrew Jackson should be removed and replaced from the 20 dollar bill. This topic has created widespread arguments between many different political figures and their different views on Jackson.
One possible resolution to this problem is to keep Andrew Jackson on the bill. This resolution would avoid a possible issue of the current currency with today’s 20 dollar bills in circulation in the current accustomed economy. If they just keep Jackson on it, they do not have to go through all the trouble to change all the 20 dollar bills. Paper money usage is on the decline because of other methods of payments such as credit cards. So it is not likely worth changing it just so a slim portion of American consumers can see another historical figure represent our paper currency. According to Trump, taking Jackson off the bill would be political correctness.
Another possible solution is to replace former President Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill for Harriet Tubman, but continue to teach history students about Andrew Jackson and his life. Andrew Jackson played a big role in history and should not be defined by the worst things in his life, but by a median of the good and bad impacts he made in his lifetime as a war hero and the President of the United States. Harriet Tubman was also an important American hero, but is it worth it to replace Jackson? I do not think this is the best solution and feel that it would be unnecessary.
The last alternative is to keep Jackson on the bill, but to conduct a more thorough education about the legacy Andrew Jackson left behind. This option will teach students and also give them the opportunity to develop their own opinion on Jackson based on the true facts they are taught. This also dodges the situation of making all new 20 dollar bills and getting rid of the current 20 dollar bills used in today’s economy.
I believe that we should keep Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. I think this because there have been other presidents and historical figures from our past that weren’t perfect themselves. Jefferson and others have also owned slaves such as Jackson did, but they also did great things to advance our country in independence and nationalism.
What Jackson did that advanced our country was play a role in the War of 1812. During our second war against the British, he was a strong military leader and general to our troops. HE won the last battle during the war at New Orleans. Jackson also helped us expand the nation and won Florida from Spain. He also solidified the two political party system for our country. Himself as the Democrtic party and his opponents became the Republicans. This boosted our country’s nationalism and independence from foreign countries.
Harriet Tubman did many things to improve the lives of minorities being discriminated against. She created the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves and was part of the women’s suffrage movement. I do agree she should get more recognition than she does. But I do not believe that the recognition should be on the twenty dollar bill, which is already occupied by our seventh president of the United States. I believe Harriet Tubman deserves a statue or memorial for what she did for the slaves and females.
Even though moments in our past aren’t always the prettiest, or seen as morally correct as we see those issues today, but we grow as a country from remembering what went wrong in the past, and improve from those mistakes that leaders made. Andrew Jackson should stay on the twenty dollar bill because he is apart of our past, even if it isn’t all good, but we grew and are still growing from his successes and mistakes. We need to be reminded of what our country could’ve been, and how we have grown and corrected our past mistakes to become the great country that we live in. We can’t fix or forget the past, but we can learn from it.
I believe that morally, Andrew Jackson should be removed from the twenty-dollar bill, but that our government has many other important issues they should be focusing on. I strongly agree Andrew Jackson is wrong in the fact that he was a supporter of slavery and killed many innocent Indians, but I believe the removal process of taking him off the twenty-dollar bill would be distracting to our federal government from more pivotal and crucial problems our country currently faces.
His presence on the bill is understandably controversial to many offended by the decisions he made as president, and I would argue that Harriet Tubman would be a much better face to represent our currency. This is especially because Jackson hated paper money anyways, so it doesn’t seem very fitting to put his figure on it. While Jackson was a great representative for our nation as a common man, I don’t feel as if he was a very morally righteous man, such displayed in his refusal to obey the order of the Supreme Court and many other political mishaps he had. I feel like Harriet Tubman was clearly morally superior, and had such a great impact on our country through her mission to lead captive African-American slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad. I believe she is definitely deserving of a spot on the twenty-dollar bill, especially as I believe it is important to have a female on our currency and to honor women’s contribution to history that may go unrecognized at times.
Although, I know that our federal government is constantly dealing with issues of great importance that will make or break the future and safety of our country. While this issue is important, it does not correlate to the safety and protection of our country that I find so vital. To distract our congress and government from issues about foreign affairs or the validity of our very own president with an issue of whose face should really be on an insignificant bill would be peculiar and unjust. This change could also lead to a slippery slope that would prompt our government to spend even more time on changing controversial names, which I believe would be too time consuming and unnecessary.
There is a very fine line between changing the entire name of the nation’s capital and saying that the America today holds different values today compared to 200 years ago. In other words, we can accept that a nation can stand for good times and bad times, but we must make an effort to show that we are better than our “bad times”, as opposed to erasing them entirely. Adding Harriet Tubman to a bill would show that we as a country are better in terms of including parts of history that many neglected before.
This raises the question of whether in adding Harriet Tubman erases Jackson’s legacy? I actually think that if we could mint both Harriet Tubman dollar bills and Jackson bills, it would show a wide range of American history. It would show that Jackson was still a part of the nation’s history, but the Tubman bill would show that we addressed the flaws in Jackson’s era. This is a viable option because new currency will intermix with old currency anyways during the transition period. Although education is a powerful tool, it is difficult to moderate the extent to which the topic is discussed in school, and it is hard to make sure all U.S kids have access to this education in the first place. The teacher’s bias as well as the region’s historical stance in these issues would contribute to different kids in the country differing in beliefs and extent of knowledge when it comes to these topics. Additionally, it is very symbolic to have a person on a thing of value (which is money in this case). Furthermore, better education cannot completely replace Tubman or Jackson on the bill, but can definitely help keep history events and people in the context of the time period in which they lived in.
This brings us to my next point. When facing this issue, we must first keep in mind the issue of presentism. That being said, I think for the most part we should keep original buildings as they are. Instead, we should move toward naming new buildings after other people that we feel best represents our ideas in this day and age. There are a few exceptions to this though. First, any monument that does not uphold the honor of that it is named after should be taken down. For example, many mascots or team names have been changed, mostly after the tribes in which they were named after deemed them inappropriate and offensive. Also, the confederate flag directly stands for the support of slavery, which ultimately honors no one. Presidencies, although offenses are part of them, usually contain something else to be honored. Again, education should be used to supplement and shed further light on citizens’ knowledge of American History that they see on currency and other monuments. Combining education and new buildings, we don’t have to try and make our history “perfect”, but instead acknowledge it and move toward a better future.
I think the best option would be the third option, to leave Jackson on the twenty dollar bill and conduct a better way to teach Jackson’s legacy. The reason I think we should keep Jackson on the twenty dollar bill is because if we attempt to change the twenty dollar bill’s face to Harriet Tubman it might spark a controversy. Jackson also played a major role in shaping America into what it is today. Jackson has also been on the bill for so long that it’d be weird to just now take him out instead of earlier. This would be strange because every type of dollar bill has a president’s face on it. It wouldn’t fit right to have somebody who isn’t a president on the bill. There’s also so many twenty dollar bills in our system already it would be a pain to recirculate all of the old twenty dollar bills out and put in the new bills. The amount of time and effort it would take to take the old bills with Jackson’s face on them and replace them with newer bills with Hariet Tubman’s face on it would take forever. Changing the bill won’t fix what Jackson did in the past. Instead of taking Jackson off the bill we should keep him on there and teach more about his bad decisions and learn how to correct them for the future or how the events lead up to why he decided to make that decision. He has many mistakes we can learn from including the Indian Removal Act which lead to the trail of tears and a mass “killing” of indians. Changing the face of the twenty dollar bill doesn’t give either of them justice. Harriet Tubman played a major role in the underground railroad and helping slaves escape. And President Jackson did good things like playing a major role in getting all white males the right to vote, which at that time was what we thought was “equal”. Overall, I think we should keep Jackson on the twenty dollar bill and teach a more thorough and better legacy about Jackson.
In my opinion, Andrew Jackson should be kept as the face of the $20 bill because replacing him with Harriet Tubman is the harder option. I don’t think that removing Jackson from the $20 bill changes much because with new generations, most people are unaware of whose face is on the money they are spending. Additionally, online shopping is becoming more popular and with new technology coming out, people are able to pay for things with their phones. People are using hard cash less and less. I understand the argument behind replacing Jackson with Tubman, but there are going to be people who are offended regardless and this would cause new controversies. Although Harriet Tubman is an extremely important historical figure in our country’s history, it would require an immense amount of time and resources that could be put towards other things.
Because Jackson has been on the $20 bill for about 100 years, replacing him with Harriet Tubman may not be a great idea. There are definitely a number of unfavorable things that Jackson did throughout his presidency which allow for many arguments supporting the replacement of him with Harriet Tubman, but America is not a perfect country and removing Jackson could be viewed by others as the government trying to make our civilization look perfect. Jackson was far from perfect, he supported the removal of the Native Americans, and owned slaves. However, by replacing someone who has been the face of the $20 bill for so long, there are going to be people who are unhappy regardless of what happens.
Lastly, teaching students about Andrew Jackson’s legacy and keeping him on the $20 bill is a good solution because then students will be able to learn the truth about his presidency and actions as a person. Historical figures that are on currency and monuments are normally looked at as perfect and are viewed in a very positive light. If students know the truth about Jackson, they can use his face on the $20 bill as a reminder that our country is not perfect and even some of the most influential people have their flaws.
I think the best option is just leaving Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill and educating more people about his legacy. In the Thomas Jefferson portrait, we talked about presentism and the way it shaped the view of our founders. Whether presentism is a good thing or not is still unknown, but I say it’s reasonable to say that this debate has presentism surrounding it. When Jackson was alive, it was normal to own slaves, hate Indians and all of the other questionable things he did. However, the decision to put him on the $20 bill was made in 1928, not 1828, so standards were quite different. Slavery was outlawed (though there was still A LOT of racism and segregation), Indians weren’t a real concern, and there was a national banking system in1928. If Andrew Jackson’s actions could stand the test of time for 100 years, I don’t see why they can’t for another 100. Honestly, this is all just opinion. This debate is so subjective because it is really about how much we want presentism to affect our history. I think it makes total sense if somebody wants AJ off the 20 because by today’s social standards, he’d be outrageous. I also think it makes sense for someone to want to keep AJ on the 20 because he did good things too and what he did wasn’t really bad for the time. I think the best solution is a compromise and just leave him on the bill, but make people aware of the good and the bad he did. We don’t have to stop there either; we could investigate GW, Abe Lincoln, TJ, and basically every other president/historical figure. As long as it doesn’t lead to people dispising our founders just because of something that they did that was normal at the time, I don’t see a problem. Harriet Tubman may be the best candidate for the 20, but I don’t think AJ should get removed for the reason that he owned slaves or he caused the trail of tears. I think everyone understands that AJ did some pretty bad things, but at the time, they were accepted. It would be great if more was known by the public about Jackson because education is always a good thing. Also just a side note, I think it’s pretty ironic that the man who despised paper money and destroyed the bank got put on a paper dollar bill 🙂