Blog #149 – Final Exam blog – Rethinking History or Should 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 in the 1890s “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 summer of 2020, America had a reckoning with Confederate monuments of all types and some people started tearing down some that still remained. Some saw these monuments as symbol of the systemic racism in the country that celebrated men who fought to keep Black folks enslaved. Other people thought that history was being “canceled” or erased by the removal of Confederate monuments. Some protestors even went after the large statue of Andrew Jackson in D.C. but could not pull it down (see pic below). Then President Trump issued an executive order that would prosecute people who defaced or destroyed federal statues.
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. And according to the latest article I could find about this in 2021, the Biden administration supports Tubman on the $20 but hasn’t taken any action as of that article to make that happen. 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)?
Please answer the following questions:
- What are your thoughts about removing historical monuments or renaming buildings after historical figures? Why?
- I see three possible alternatives to Jackson on the $20:
- Keep him there and leave it as it is.
- Swap him out with Harriet Tubman, and leave Andrew Jackson to be talked about in history classes.
- 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.)
To answer the first question, people shouldn’t be put on the pedestal that is being the namesake for buildings, holidays, and anything of the like. That might be a broad statement, however, everyone is capable of doing bad things, really bad things. Regardless of whatever good someone has done or will do, humans are morally gray, and treating the actions of a person as black or white just feels impractical. It’s understandable as to why people NOW are wanting to condemn the actions of those back THEN, however, we can’t change the past. Andrew Jackson did a lot of bad things during his presidency, he personally sought for the slaughtering of thousands of indigenous people, he destroyed the national bank, he killed several people, and so much more! I think that as time goes on, we start to question those we used to idolize, whether it’s due to more information coming out about them, unlearning our propagandized education, or just viewing them differently through the lens of awareness and education. You could go with the argument of “once you change this one facet of this one tiny thing, everything else is going to change”, but since the removal of many statues of colonizers or racists or war criminals, the majority of people who wanted to keep them still feel the same way about them. I think that as time passes for us, as a species, we start to realize the error in our ways, no matter how small or how big, and that’s what the removal of monuments, the renaming of buildings, etc feels like. We’ve changed our minds about these people being “heroes” or “role models”, we’re just “growing up” as a country. As for the second part of the question, I personally think that the second option is the best path to pursue for the future of the 20 dollar bill. I understand that Jackson was an important person within our country’s history, but so was Harriet Tubman, and people of color don’t get nearly enough recognition within our country’s history. Like I bet you didn’t know Lewis Latimer, a black inventor in the 1850s, was responsible for the filament inside of the lightbulb, or the toilet system on trains. People of color, especially black and indigenous people in America don’t get their fair share of representation in our collective history, and having Harriet Tubman on our 20 dollar bill is a sort of ‘baby step’ towards the inclusion of people of color within our history classrooms and our culture as a whole. Regarding people on currencies, I didn’t even know Jefferson was on the nickel, I don’t think people care too much, as long as you can buy things with it.
Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United states. The word we used in class to describe his presidency (I will be naming it in this passage) was a common word I’ve heard to describe the man himself. Jackson, easily comparable to some other presidents we’ve had in more recent times, was a real trip. To name off a list of interesting things he decided to do while president would be way too lengthy to put here but i’ll state some of them. He created the spoils system, which basically “spoiled” the winning candidate of the presidential election by giving them power to admit whoever they wanted into government jobs. They called Jackson’s cabinet the “Kitchen Cabinet” because it was mostly filled with his close friends. Even though he said he advocated for states’ rights as well as people’s rights he sort of went against those ideals with the spoils system by taking away people’s decision on the people that represent THEM in THEIR government. He was also pro expansion of slavery and My thoughts on renaming or replacing certain monuments or historical symbols are fluid, meaning they depend on what exactly we are renaming or replacing and for what reason. I think since we are advancing in many ways in regards to releasing parts of history that we disregarded in the past, it would be best to actually highlight those parts. With that being said I do think that taking Jackson off of the 20$ bill would be a good idea, but an even better idea would be to replace it with Harriot Tubman. See I know we have this cute little theme where we put all of our presidents on our money but honestly I think it’s outdated. Instead of having a hypocrit and a slave owner as the face of our 20$ bill I think it’s time we had someone who actually changed things in our country for the better. Harriet Tubman managed to save over 300 enslaved people in the span of 19 days or trips. Now this may not seem like that many in the grand scheme of things but saving just one person from the horrible institution of slavery is a great feat in itself. Especially since it was so hard for slaves to escape and get out alive on their own. So in conclusion I think that replacing O’l Hickory with Harriet Tubman on the 20$ bill would be a good thing to consider since she made more important advancements for us in the long term. Hopefully by taking action this can set a precedent for the future and we can start replacing monuments and symbols made to honor bad people with monuments that honor good ones.
I think that it could be necessary to remove controversial political figures from historical monuments, and rename buildings named after them. Maintaining names of historical figures as the names of buildings and establishments perpetuates a false idolization of figures who don’t deserve it, as they contributed to the suffering of many marginalized groups and held racist, sexist, and other offensive beliefs. In America, we should reserve the right of naming a holiday or location after a historical figure to someone who has made a great impact on our world. Figures like Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D Roosevelt. Those who lead our country through times of peril, and fought for true equality across all people, making the world a better place. But, this issue can get complicated, as many prominent historical figures who are seen as “the greats” had controversial opinions on other matters and groups that tend to soil their reputation. For example, Winston Churchill, who served as the prime minister of the United Kingdom during WWII. He is widely credited for being an extremely strong leader, who maintained the morale of the people of the UK, and led the country during one of the darkest times of its history. But, when he is put under the magnifying lens, some controversies with racism, and comments on race arise. This is the main issue that I can see with tearing down monuments, as where do we draw the line for what requires removal of commemoration to someone? As time passes, there will always be conversations that need to be had on whether or not the people that we idolize from the past were truly great. It is a theme that shows up with every historical figure in our history, where there are always positives and negatives to someone’s political career, no matter who they are. It gets down to debating what is more valuable to pay attention to, the good that someone did? Or the negative opinions that they held in the background. Overall, I think that in the case of Jackson, the bad outweighs any good that he did, as he advocated for the relocation of native Americans, which led to the infamous trail of tears. I think that the removal of Andrew Jackson from idolized positions like the $20 dollar bill and from statues can be justified. He should be swapped out with Harriet Tubman, and Students should be educated on who he was, what he did, his controversies, and all other aspects of his political career. I also think that we should set a standard for education into controversial figures, where we avoid this idealization of figures that have controversial backstories and political careers, like Columbus and Jackson. When we place them next to “The Greats” like Washington and Lincoln, we associate them with being great leaders, when in reality. Just because someone was of the founding father generation of American politics, that doesn’t mean they were a great person.
I think historical statues, monuments, and buildings of problematic figures should be removed and kept in museums, as they are a part of history. They should not be destroyed or forgotten. Instead, if they are problematic, they shouldn’t be paraded and praised but removed. To give an example, Andrew Jackson was a problematic president. He approved of the Indian removal act leading to the trail of tears and he supported slavery. Adding him to the 20-dollar bill defends his past actions and gives him a positive historical connotation to history even though Jackson was very racist, sexist, and generally problematic. I wasn’t aware who Andrew Jackson was until around middle school but, I knew what the 20-dollar bill looked like and I knew only important people were put on money. Around 7th grade, I learned that Andrew Jackson was very problematic and maybe he shouldn’t be celebrated however, as the 7th president of the united states, he is still an important part of American history and he deserves to be honored for his good acts but condemned for his bad ones. This is why I believe monuments and statues of problematic historical figures should be put in a museum. That way those who want to learn about all of history will be able to learn about the good and bad people that existed. They will be studied and their actions will be reflected upon, but those people will not be praised. I think it would be unethical to remove historical monuments and destroy them. Doing this would essentially erase them from history but that’s not the solution. We must acknowledge all parts of history so we can learn from them, not just erase the bad parts.
I believe we should put Harriet Tubman on the bill to reflect the influence she had on a large part of American culture. This country was built on the backs of African Americans. Their contribution to American history should be immortalized, I think adding Harriet to the 20 would do that. Young African Americans have to look for idols, through books or other forms of media. If she was put on the 20-dollar bill young African Americans would be reminded of her nearly every day. Harriet Tubman would represent the African American side of the country which is far overdue for some positive representation.
Removing historical monuments is a two way street – on one hand, those monuments are history, and removing them is taking down a vital piece of our American history. On the other hand, if those monuments represent slavery, segregation, or other terrible, out of date ideals, taking them down can represent moving on from all of those awful pieces of our history. Both sides are valid, and your take on that depends on multiple factors – are you from the region where this monument is? Are you familiar with this person’s views? Is this person considered a “local hero”? All of these are things to think about when the idea of a historical monument being taken down is thrown out. Personally, I think that if those monuments represent a particularly gruesome part of our history, they should be taken down. If the person did generally good things that line up with where our country is heading, that statue should stay.
With the idea of changing the $20 bill, I think that all 3 options are valid, but I personally agree with the 3rd option. In a perfect world, the 2nd option would be the way to go, but replacing most, if not all, of the $20 bills in the U.S. would be quite an undertaking. It’s simply not feasible, and having multiple $20 bills with different people on the bill would confuse and anger some people. I also think some would be quite upset over the change. Many on the more patriotic side would think that history is being erased, and we’re covering up our past, or something like that.
I think the 3rd option is much more feasible. Many older folks who have their ideals set in stone will not have their opinion changed. By teaching the younger kids, we can slowly assimilate the idea that Jackson was a terrible person into society. As the older people with their traditional ways of thinking die, and the younger kids with modern ideals enter society as adults, public opinion of Jackson will slowly shift. I think if the 3rd option is used, in 25 or so years, this conversation could be much more interesting. If the society as a whole thinks that changing the bill is feasible and a good thing, then the change may occur.
When I think about how some historical figures affected our country, like for example Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson, I try to think about the good things that they did and how they changed our country for the better. Now, each of them did amazing things for our country, like for example Jefferson was one of the creators of the Declaration of Independence, he enforced the Louisiana Purchase to grow our country, and so much more. Jackson paid off national debt, strengthened our relationships with other countries, and other things too. The problem is when you dig deep and you discover that these men and so many others aren’t all you expected they are. For one instance, Jefferson owned slaves and was very hypocritical about the subject. Now, tons and tons of people did own slaves, which isn’t validating it to be the right thing to do, but we have to remember that he wasn’t the only one. And Andrew Jackson also owned slaves and moved Native Americans off of their land to make space for everyone else, but it wasn’t necessarily a thing at the time that seemed out of the ordinary. People who are historical figures and even celebrities now, have so many more lights shining on them from different directions and this makes me think about what people would find out about us too if we were in the spotlight all of the time. Would there be things found out about us that we don’t want the rest of the world to know? This is kind of what may have happened to some of these more famous figure and is why I personally believe that we should keep some of the statues and things that have pictures of some of these people on them, but also make more that have people like Fredrick Douglas or Harriet Tubman, to even it out so there wouldn’t be a reason for any backlash. As for the second part of the question, I think that Jackson should be taken off of the $20 and replaced with someone like Harriet Tubman, but I don’t think this should take away from the teaching of him or what we learn about him in school because although he and other important historical figures had controversial opinions, they were important in shaping our country.
I believe that certain monuments should be removed, while others I feel are okay to keep. In the U.S. horrible atrocities have taken place, slavery, oppression, wars, attacks against our capital, death. But we do not rename the U.S, we still weald this name proudly. Yes we have made mistakes, and yes some of the actions that have taken place in the past are unforgivable. But we can not change the past and I feel that if we were to remove all monuments or rename all buildings that are named after not so great historical figures, it is similar to trying to erase the past or cover it up. This does not mean it is okay to keep names that are culturally appropriate to name an establishment or to keep figures that were genocidal maniacs. There has to be a balance. The most important thing is to make sure that we stay educated to be able to make these decisions of who is it okay to be on things like the $20 bill.
Jackson is considered to be one of the great presidents of the U.S. Yet his decisions as president destroyed or in many cases took the lives of thousands of innocent people. I feel keeping or getting rid of Jackson on the bill depends on a few factors. Jackson was a fairly successful president, he laid the framework for democracy, paid off the national debt and more. However Jackson forcibly removed native people from their lands. These natives were forced to march 800 miles west. On which journey many died from exhaustion or starvation. If we keep his face on the bill but recognize the atrocities that he committed himself or that he let happen whether directly or indirectly. If we fail to do this and view his face on the bill as a way to commemorate and celebrate him and choose to ignore the facts of what he did then he should be removed from the bill. So as long as we properly educate about Andrew Jackson’s legacy then I believe it is okay to keep him on the $20.
My opinions on removing historical monuments or renaming buildings fall entirely on who or what they are dedicated to. If a statue was dedicated to a confederate leader, then yes, I see the merit in wanting it taken down as the confederacy openly supported slavery in America. Suppose the statue is someone such as Abraham Lincoln, like the statue torn down and vandalized in Portland. In that case, I don’t see the merit seeing as he was a man who advocated heavily against slavery and even signed the document that made the practice illegal. I quite frankly don’t see the point in tearing down a statue for someone that was pretty average, if they didn’t do something objectively wrong that had a clear negative outcome, I just don’t see the appeal. So in some cases, I feel that it is acceptable to tear down a statue if the person was horrible, but if that person wasn’t, I just don’t think it is worth the trouble.
I think the best option for the 20-dollar bill would be to leave it as it is and teach more about his legacy. As we are today, there are so many bills in circulation, that would make it so uncommon to find a bill with her on it, it seems like it may be a bit ineffective. Also, Jackson did some great things for the united states, He helped shape the way for the democratic 2 party system that we use today, and he even fought in the War of 1812 for the United States. However, his legacy was not all great, he did of course do some incredibly horrible things, such as forcing Native Americans from their homes and removing the second National Bank. When it gets down to it, changing the bill would most likely be ineffective, while it would be a nice gesture, given the sheer amount of 20-dollar bills that are in circulation, it would be uncommon to see one, and if the goal is to honor Harriet Tubman, I think it would be better to honor her in a different way.
My thoughts on removing historical monuments and/or renaming buildings after historical figures are kind of split. I do understand and somewhat agree with the movement of wanting to remove monuments dedicated to people who were not the greatest representation of what people want to view as the “Great American” history. I believe that destroying and taking down monuments that supported the views and generally appraised people in history who were in support of slavery or any kind of belief like that in general is a good thing. Although, I don’t think they should be forgotten- it’s good to recognize what happened in our history, and recognize it for what it is. There’s going to be bad and good in every history of a people, and that’s something that we have to accept- no matter how ugly it may seem. Many people are judged for their ancestry, and in taking down and renaming structures- I think that relieves a little bit of pressure. It takes away the major appraisal of said monumental person.
For the Jackson on the $20 bill problem- there’s two standpoints I have. I would love for it to be changed or just removed completely from the bill- but, unfortunately, I don’t think that will happen. A more realistic solution would be just to leave it. This isn’t because I support what he’s done, but simply because I don’t realistically think it would ever happen. There are so many people in our society with conservative viewpoints, and so many people with “woke” viewpoints. The constant conflict between the two sides has caused backlash on things such as this to be changed or left alone; and I don’t think they will ever come to a solution for this problem. I understand both sides- If we change this, what else are we going to change? Things could be drastically changed in other areas considering America’s history. On the other hand, people who are in favor of changing the bill have a valid viewpoint. Are we really going to leave a bad person viewable on our money- something we view as a great thing; yet have a figure of such a caliber of tyranny on a certain kind of people at the time?
I think that it would be beneficial to remove statues and monuments to historical figures because it would change the way that the historical people are viewed, and the historical figures would be known to be humans with flaws, rather than perfect heroes and idols. If there are statues and monuments that honor people who caused horrible things, it is teaching people to overlook the bad things that historical figues have done. In the book How the Word is Passed, Clint Smith wrote about how when he was growing up, there were many buildings and streets named after confederate and slave owning historical figures, and that there were so many things honoring Confederates, roads, buildings, and his school. He reflected on how as a child, he didn’t learn about who those monuments were in honor of, only that they were important heroes in history. This shows that having historical figures honored in monuments portrays them as only a hero, and doesn’t show the negative side of their life and legacy. It is important to teach the entirety of real American history, even the bad parts of history, and in removing the monuments, it would be shown that these people were not the perfect heroes that are being honored. I think that although it would be beneficial to remove the statues and monuments, the most important thing is that we teach and learn who they truly were, including their flaws.
Andrew Jackson should be taken off the twenty dollar bill and replaced by Harriet Tubman because it will help people realize that he did things that had a huge negative impact. He passed the Indian Removal Act which forced tens of thousands of American Indians out of their homes. Andrew Jackson had many slaves and made great profits from slavery, and vetoed the rechartering of the Bank of the United States, which made the panic of 1837 worse than it would have been with a national bank. Taking Andrew Jackson would open lots of discussion surrounding him and his presidency, which would allow more education about his part in American history, good and bad. Another reason that Andrew Jackson should not be on the twenty dollar bill is that he was strongly against the bank, which opens the question of if he would even want to be on the money. He thought that having a federal bank would give the government too much power, and vetoed an act that would keep the bank.
I think that to get rid of a historical monument that was named or built in honor of someone, the characteristic you are pulling them down for has to be a main part of that person’s character. No human is perfect, and each of them makes mistakes, some bigger than others, and all think they are doing the right thing, even though that might not be considered the right thing a hundred years in the future. Some people deserve to be commemorated and have monuments built in their honor. Some, their faults and mistakes are too big a part of them to be commemorated. For example, I am all for removing Gen. Robert E. Lee statues and memorials because pretty much all of his personality was his want to keep slavery, and all the fighting he underwent to keep the institution. However, when you talk about George Washington, a large part of who he was is that he was the first president of the US, the one who got a unanimous vote to become president, and the one who everyone saw and still is seen as the “classical hero”. Even owning slaves, people would see all his other achievements as worth commemorating. It’s still important to learn every part of that person, but maybe monuments should be made not to celebrate the entire person, but one or more of their positive achievements, as long as those achievements represent a big enough part of their life and character. With Andrew Jackson, his entire presidency can be summed up with 5 events: vetoing the BUS, removing many indigenous nations from where they lived, raising and lowering a tariff and getting into a fight with South Carolina about it, a champion of the common man, and the spoils system. At least two of those had direct and lasting negative consequences, vetoing the BUS and removing natives from their homeland. Vetoing the BUS and driving it into the ground resulted in at least one economic recession in the US and the effects were seen for decades to come. Removing the indigenous nations from where they lived killed so many of them before, during, and after the Trail of Tears, and was just a huge cruelty on people who had their own lives in their own sovereign countries, and whose lives were turned upside down by the forced removal. Those 2 things were too big a part of his legacy for him to be on the $20 bill. He might have done some good things and have been a champion of the common man, but he doesn’t deserve to be on the $20 dollar bill more than other historical figures, such as Harriet Tubman. Therefore I prefer option 2, swapping Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bills, and leaving him to be taught in classrooms.
I think that removing historical monuments in order to demote racism is a very good idea. If people were to look up to the monuments of people who were racists they might think that being racist is ok and something they should incorporate into their day to day life. I believe that renaming buildings is ok but not the best because a lot of people already know that building and renaming it will confuse some people. If a building is named after someone who did some bad stuff most of the time people do not look up the people a building is named after. Renaming buildings is also good because, if tons of people were to look up that person and find out that they did some not good things and if the person did do those things to be famous there would be a big issue. I think we should swap Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson and leave Andrew Jackson to be talked about in class. Andrew Jackson is not the best person to have on the 20 dollar bill because he is not a founding member of the United States like Washington, Hamilton and Franklin. Lincoln, Grant and Jackson are the only people on dollar bills (that we use) that aren’t founding fathers. Lincoln should stay on the 5 dollar bill because he kept the United States united (granted there was a Civil War). Grant is on the 50 dollar bill for a similar reason to Lincoln because Grant was the winning general in the Civil War. Jackson is on the 20 dollar bill for existing (I did some research and the Washington Post says that even the US Treasury does not know why Andrew Jackson’s face was chosen in 1928). Harriet Tubman would be a better person for the 20 dollar bill because she would be chosen because of the amazing things she did for the African American population. Andrew Jackson did some good things like strengthen foreign politics but that pales in comparison to what Harriet Tubman did for the greater good of the people living in the United States.
For me, the removal of statues or renaming buildings representing people we have found to be horrible is a no-brainer Yes, many of the people who have statues or namesake buildings were undeniably a part of our history. Both the good and bad things that happened are a part of our history and the reason our country is the way it is today. However, especially if someone has done more harm than good, especially regarding racial minorities who can and should be considered the American people, we shouldn’t hold those people on such a high pedestal (literally).
Tearing down statues is not removing history, it is reframing it. Promoting equality is not a passive project, and if we simply accept how we view our history no progress will be made. As we come to include new voices and experiences, History is in constant need of revision by new minds. And some of that, yes, is bad. Figures have always made an impact, that is what makes them historical figures. But if it wasn’t, overall, a good impact then there is no reason to keep them in places of honor. In history books, always, but not in city centers.
I thought the figures on bills, at least initially, would be a much more complicated discussion. Yes, Harriet Tubman was an impactful figure and did far more good than Andrew Jackson. But I hesitate at the slippery slope that was mentioned. Where do we stop? Does one change mean we have to criticize every other person on the bills?
But then, why is that a bad thing? Let’s fall down the slope. Let’s talk about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Let us take a moment to decide if their good outweighs their bad or not. If we allow ourselves the time to examine those figures and their right to placement in currency, there is no reason that those changes would be bad. Just like we should continue to analyze history, we should analyze how it’s seen, and who we choose to celebrate. In short, I think we should replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman, or at least very seriously consider it.
I do not believe that every statue should be taken down or every name changed. However, I do not believe they should all remain, either. I believe that each instance is unique and therefore must be considered separately.
“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.” I agree with only part of this statement from the blog. I believe that our society has become overly obsessed with not offending anyone. However, I do not feel that opposing political correctness is a just reason to keep the statues, nor would taking them down be to protect people’s feelings or erase history- this was another concern stated in the blog. The purpose is to stop celebrating and promoting racism and oppression. And that, I fully support.
I think we also need to consider why a person is being honored. While the subjects of these statues and names often played major roles in the development of our nation, or certain aspects of it, they were not Gods. Many of them did awful things alongside the great/important ones. I think it is okay to keep a statue up as long as we recognize that and are not celebrating them.
Part of this would be improving our educational system, ensuring that students and society are well educated about not only the accomplishments, but the horrors and malfeasances as well.
Additionally, many of the celebrated actions of these people were beneficial to our country, and many of the immoral ones, such as slavery, were not seen as wrong at the time these people were alive. While I am not condoning or dismissing such actions, I do think that it is important to consider the beliefs of the time period in the judgement of the statue, as well as the manner in which the person is commemorated. For example, a Hitler statue in the holocaust museum, with an acknowledgement that it is not in support of his ideals, would be fine. However, a hitler statue in an elementary school would not be.
Lastly, as a democratic nation, abolishing commemorations of discrimination and oppression should be important, because this is what we claim to be lack in calling ourselves a “free country”.
So, if a statue or title is deemed unworthy/wrong after evaluation, I feel it is very important that it be taken down. However, not every statue needs to go and not every name needs to be changed. It simply depends on the situation.
If I were to make the decision, I’d say that I support removing Jackson from the bill and replacing him with Harriet Tubman.
Jackson was obviously very influential to our country. I mean, he was the president! But that doesn’t mean that we need his face on the $20 bill. We don’t have the face fo every U.S. president, or every influential person in American history on our money, do we? We don’t even commemorate them all. But that’s what having his face on the $20 bill does: it honors him. So, the question of whether, and in what manner, to remove Jefferson from the $20 bill is really the question of whether or not we want to honor him.
“Jackson was a slave owner whose decisions annihilated American Indian tribes of the Southeast,” These are not behaviors that I want to promote. “He also hated paper currency…” If we did want to honor him, why would we chose to do it through a device that he did not support?
During his time, Jackson represented the common white man. There have been 45 presidents in 46 presidencies and all but one of them were white men. Our country has yet to elect a female president, and they’ve only just elected a female vice-president. In a addition to that, racism is growing. Having a black woman in such a huge aspect of America- the currency- would be a huge step for people of color, women, and other minorities. This is because the expansion of American acceptance to further that of one or two minorities opens the door for the acceptance of other minorites.
This is why I support replacing Jefferson with Tubman on the $20 bill.
1. I think that because of how much controversy there is with removing historical monuments and renaming buildings after historical figures, we should put more statues up and name more buildings after people that represent historical figures of color. The majority of statues and buildings named after and built for white political leaders who were slave owners out numbers the number of statues of people of color who suffered at the hands of people like those. Though a lot of the people that have buildings named or statues built after them were not good people regardless of how much impact they had on America, a lot of people aren’t willing to take those statues down or rename them. So, I think that there should be more statues of people of color who have also made great accomplishments throughout history. Why? Because it is important to commemorate and represent people of color who suffered for this country to thrive and be where it is at now. Also it is important and needed from America to diversify the historical figures we use to represent the makers of this country, because there were so many more who made big contributions and had a huge impact on this country who aren’t white and aren’t represented.
2. I think that because there are only white men on the current bills now and considering the fact that bills have been changed before, Harriet Tubman should be on the 20 dollar bill. We should leave Jackson to be talked about in history class. I also think that it is fair that if she is ever put on there we should leave her on there and not switch it unless we are switching it to another historical figure of color, because it is highly unlikely that another black person, person of color or woman will be put on a dollar bill over a white man. We need to diversify the people we choose to present to represent this country. These types of things like statues, buildings, flags etc set a certain narrative for America. We can choose to set a narrative of being a country that is known for being built off of white people or we can set a precedent of this country being built by a diverse group of people and include everyone.
1. Removing historical monuments or renaming buildings after historical figures is good. Why would we as American want to boast about problematic people? The removal of monuments allows us to do what we can in the present, as we can fix the wrongdoings of the past. Renaming buildings after historical figures is something that had always confused me, but I think things like museums and schools are essential. Especially in the area where that said historical figure made a big impact or grew up, (Ex. MLK). I know in Lansing there is MLK Dr. I feel especially naming schools after GOOD historical figures that impacted America in a good way is essential. It sets an example and standard for all students for their education.
2. I think we should swap Jackson out for Harriet Tubman. We have so many different bills and coins all with white men on them. Most of which are not who we want to be represented with. Having Harriet Tubman on the $20 will be how we honor her nationally. If the change happens then schools can take a day to dive deeper into Jackson and his life, and see why we wanted him removed from the $20.Though as mentioned in the blog about what would it lead to. Renaming D.C or taking Lincoln off the penny? I think it would be a process. Start off with Jackson and we see where it takes us. Some stuff may be hard to rename like D.C. It all depends on the willpower of the people and knowing what would we rename it to. If we leave him on the bill I think we would need a lot more education on Jackson. We could start off by just learning more about him in elementary. If I am being honest I had no idea who he even was until High School. It could be like a special activity or something where we learn the basics of each person on currency, then in middle school go even deeper. Just that would help so much. It could be applied to really anything.
On my thoughts of removing historical monuments and renaming buildings after historical figures, I personally believe that historical monuments can be removed depending on its reason for being erected but, buildings named after historical figures should be left the same. The reason I believe that historical monuments erected after historical figures could be removed is because if it is supposed to represent something negative for example, a statue erected for a infamous slave catcher can be removed because if it’s left their it gives the city or area a bad name for honouring someone who did something wrong. But say it was someone who’s goods outshines the wrongs, I think the statue could be left alone. For example George Washington he’s owned and sold off slaves (which I personally view to be terrible and can’t be justified in any way), but at the same time he was the reason the US won the American revolution. Without him the country would just be another British colony. Thats why people will still respect and defend washington tho he possessed slaves. I think buildings named after historical figures should be left the same. It would change the historical meaning of the building for it to be changed if anything is to be done to it, it’s better if it’s removed or destroyed than changing its name. Because if a statue is raised for someone you would still know who its for even if the name is changed, but if a building’s name is changed then the person it was named after association with the building will eventually be forgotten. I believe that for the face of the 20 dollar bill Andrew Jackson should be removed and replaced with Harriet Tubman. I personally believe that Harriet Tubman in her lifetime has done more good than Andrew Jackson has. Hariet Tubman was a conductor for the underground railroad (The Underground Railroad was a network of people, both whites and free Blacks, who worked together to help runaways from slaveholding states travel to states in the North and to the country of Canada, where slavery was illegal), where she led over 300 slaves to freedom. In the American Civil war she served as a nurse. In June 1863 she joined the colonel and his soldiers in an attack on plantations along the Combahee River in South Carolina. The assault saved more than 700 enslaved people. Her influence in the war helped the North win the American civil war. The win in war set black people free from slavery a led to millions of blacks being able to be born free and live free in the US. Andrew Jackson Paid off National debt, gained the US new land, issued a foreign currency, and strengthened relationships with foreign nations. He also owned over 100 slaves, Shut down The second BUS, led cruel military campaigns against Indians, was behind the US Indian removal act, earned his money from owning slaves, killed fugitive slaves, caused an economic depression, fired hundreds of gov employess to hire people in his inner circle, and more. I believe that Harriet Tubman has done more and is more deserving of being on the U.S. 20 dollar bill than Jackson. Also the 20 dollar bill has had other people on it so changing it wouldn’t even be outta place.
Personally I think that Andrew Jackson should not still be on the 20 dollar bill. Due to the fact that he was the main influence that caused the Trail of Tears and he also supported the continuation of slavery in America. During Jackson’s presidency he introduced the Indian removal policy, which forced Indians to give up their land and migrate west-ward. This displacement of 5 Indian Nations, the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Ponca, and the Winnebago, is know as the Trail of Tears. Jackson thought that he was doing the right thing and believed that the Indians were like children who needed guidance. He believed that forcing them to move many miles westward was for their own good, since he believed that they would never fit in with white society and to overall just avoid conflict with white settlers. Jackson also contributed to the continuation of slavery from personal profiting from it and strongly supporting it.
Overall I feel as though it depends on the situation and given person when it comes to removing historical monuments or renaming buildings after historical figures. Historical monuments, memorials, and buildings reflect values, and important stories about people and certain periods. They give a reminder that history has shaped where we are now today, in the present. But some historical monuments, memorials, and buildings glorify people who have done wrong things within our country’s history. Don’t get me wrong it is very important to be reminded where we came from, but at the same time I believe it is a bad thing to glorify people who promoted and contributed to very bad causes, such as slavery and other racist things. An example of this would be having president Andrew Jackson appear on our nation’s 20 dollar bill.
3 possible alternatives to having Jackson on the 20 dollar bill would be to keep him there and leave it as it is, swap him out with Harriet Tubman, or leave him on the bill but conduct better and more thorough education about his legacy. Personally I think that we should remove him from the bill completely and have Harriet Tubman replace him, but also that we should have a better education and understanding of who Andrew Jackson is and all the bad things he did during his lifetime.
My thoughts on removing or keeping monuments/ renaming buildings are as follows. If the person overall did more good for this country than bad Id say we should keep them. The fact that as we change our mind as we get more educated is a good thing. It gives us room to learn new thoijg s and change for the better. When we learn that these people that we call “heros” have actaully done some extremely horrible things. As society we need to evolve. That’s our job as human beings. We need to correct what is wrong in order to build a better stronger society. nAs for Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill… we should change that as quickly as possible. The amount of terrible terrible things Jackson did during his time in office. The Indian Removal Act, The Trail Of Tears, owning 100+ slaves, and rejecting the 2nd BUS. He did improv the economy and was a leader for the “common man” in the 1830’s. However, the more that we learn about Jackson’s history we learn more and more truth.Back then there wasnt twitter, we learn things by studying documents, articles, etc. After reading the chapter in Lies My Teacher told me we learned more and more about the terrible things thst Columbus did. Therefore, a better alternative for Columbus Day would be Indiginous People’s Day.
2. I think we should take Jackson off the 20. He was known in the early 1800’s as a man of the people. But now as we see that he has done truly terrible things for his own well being and person wellbeing. Harriet Tubman would be an amazing replacement for the awful andrew jackson. Not only was 100 years of womens rights a few years ago but harriet tubman helped people who were suffering. Andrew Jackson enslaved people, Tubman helped the slaves escape their slaves masters by using the underground railroad. Harriet Tubaman enginbieered the underground railroad, She would be the 3rd women on U.S currency, but the first woman on Paper money.
I don’t think removing historical monuments is always the best idea or the right thing to do. I think there are many alternatives to this. Monuments and memorials of historical figures can reflect values, important stories, and power. They remind us that history is not only in textbooks we read or are taught in class but all around us. I do though, understand where other people are coming from when they say historical monuments should be removed. Of course, that is when the historical figure may actually represent a person who didn’t make the greatest choices. I like to think of it as the person is up there maybe not because of their choices, but because they had a contribution to the place we are today. So, I believe instead of removing monuments, we need to add them. We need to add them and make them more seen and more significant than the others. Because removing something that’s been there for 100s of years is almost a lost cause, which is why adding is better.
Andrew Jackson has been on the $20 bill since 1928. 1928 is the 100th anniversary of Jackson’s election as president, but to a lot of people, it’s still not clear why Jackson was put on the bill, to replace Grover Cleveland. I believe, if the face of the $20 bill were to be changed, it should be changed to either Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, or Eleanor Roosevelt. Mixing in with this issue, looking more into the actions of both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, we can see that they have and share similarities with Jackson. If removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill is considered then so should removing Washington and Jefferson. It is not sufficient enough to only judge Jackson by his two mistakes, as we look at the accomplishments of other presidents on our money and yet we chose to ignore their mistakes. Overall, Jackson had far more achievements than faults as he eliminated the national debts, internal improvements grew under his presidency, he was a celebrated war hero, he then followed through with destroying the bank, which strengthen the power of the executive, and he also succeeded in representing the common man. However, Jackson is much too controversial, especially in recent years of research.
We should keep these historical monuments and buildings because they show a window into the past and allow future generations to have knowledge of these people, good or bad. If we remove these monuments we could, as the article said, could lead to more and more things being taken down and removed in the form of “political correctness”. Referred to as the “Slippery Slope Theory”. This theory posits that if we start to take down monuments and rename buildings or “give up ground”, that more and more will be taken down renamed or “more ground taken” until there is none left to take.
Of course, these historical figures were not always amazing people in all facets of life, however they were important and instrumental in the creation of the nation we have today. They created, in Jefferson’s case, the constitution. For Jackson, he allowed more people the chance to vote, and for many others who had done many more things since then. We need to remember these people for the good they did and teach people the bad, so they can see both sides of the story and decide their opinions on these figures for themselves.
The best option for these monuments is to leave them standing, but to teach the truth of these historical figures to people. As in the case of Andrew Jackson, we should leave him on the twenty dollar bill, but we need to teach about his true legacy more, like seen in the average APUSH classroom. Most of these people were not great men, Andrew Jackson especially, many of these people held slaves, abused minorites or activley oppressed others. However, these people were defining leaders, philosophers, and soldiers. The need to teach the truths about these people is apparent but the need to remember their great accomplishments is just as apparent.
Jacksos, more specifically, was a slave holder. Between his two plantations. The Hermitage and a Mississippi plantation, he held 161 slaves. He was a barely educated man from the backwoods in South Carolina. After studying law, he became a prospective young lawyer. He was also a staunch ego maniac, he would duel almost anyone who insulted his honor, especially his wife. He won the country by more of the popular vote than any of his predecessors. Jackson, during his presidency, had the state of South Carolina try to nullify a tariff the federal government placed on their exports and imports. He ordered troops to South Carolina and personally chose to lead them as their commander-in-chief. Henry Clay, the great negotiator, negotiated a deal where South Carolina would drop the nullification if the tariff would be gradually lowered. This was the good that Andrew Jackson had done, but there were also many awful things he did.
One of these awful things was the Trail of Tears. This event was when multiple “civilized” native american tribes were paid to be moved to Oklahoma. Jackson had declared “incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier.” Clearing Alabama and Mississippi of their Indian populations, he said, would “enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power”. They believed that this removal would be good for both the Indians and white settlers. Over 15,000 native americans were moved along the so-called “Trail of Tears”. Thousands of the people had died during this relocation and the Cherokee had seen none of the money they signed for, as the individuals who signed had run away with the money.
This goes to show that there was a great and formative history to Andrew Jackson, but also a terrible and vile history that needs to be taught along with the great things he did. He should remain on the 20 dollar bill, but we should teach everyone everything he really had done throughout his life. We cannot just remove these monuments because they were instrumental in getting to the country we have. However, there is an awful past to many of these figures that needs to be taught to people. But removing these monuments would only lead to forgetting the good history of these people.
Alright, to start with my thoughts on monuments and buildings, I think I’ve got a pretty cool idea. Whenever there’s a statue, building name, street name, or whatever that people don’t like or is controversial for whatever reason they must put together some sort of petition or something with x amount of people saying they don’t like this and that they want it changed. Then, they can hold a vote of some sort. I’m not unsure if it would be city-wide, county-wide, state-wide, etc. but the point is there’d be a vote, and if it’s voted to be kept, keep it, and if it’s voted to be taken down, take it down. Here’s the idea part (which might already exist because it seems like it would). Take all these controversial statues and throw them into a museum. Have the exhibits explain why they were controversial and both sides of the story as well as why they were created and whatnot. I would totally go visit that museum. As for street and building names, some processes and if they’re changed (obviously maybe not every building and street name but maybe the interesting ones) have a little exhibit set up explaining the history and controversy and whatnot. I don’t know, maybe the museum just sticks to statues. That seems more interesting anyways. I digress.
Moving on from that I actually have a genius idea for the Harriet Tubman on the $20 or whoever you want to put on there. Now, we all know this country is never going to agree on how to handle that situation, nor will they agree on if we should even remove someone like Jackson from the $20, so I propose we leave whoever on whatever currency and create fun commemorative coins every now and then. Now, I may have stolen this from the Europeans (more specifically the EU) but who’s gonna stop me? Basically, maybe once every year or so on some important anniversary (like in the EU they did it for the anniversary of the Economic and Monetary Union) and decide who we’re gonna put on the coin and then we can vote on a design. We can use the quarter because it’s the biggest coin that anyone really uses giving the most space for details and then we can print these coins for a limited time and boom, everyone’s happy. I think this would be super cool and people would be collecting these like crazy. I’m not sure how or who would decide what we put on them. Maybe leave that to a vote too. And by vote, I mean like some online thing, not some ballot election thing. Or maybe you could put them on a midterm ballot or something like that, who knows. And I’m sure there could be some trolling, but as long as we monitor actual bad things like confederate coins or whatever then I think it’s all in good fun. Like the stickman euro!
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/coins/comm/shared/img/joint_comm_2009_Netherlands.jpg
Removing historical monuments and portraits is understandably controversial and should not be as violently and dramatically executed as today. Yes, I most certainly believe in the first amendment right to protest, but people are taking monumental destruction to the extreme. Just because Jimmy (no offense to anyone named Jimmy) does not like Andrew Jackson does not mean you need to buy a spray paint can from Home Depot to tell the whole world on television that you do not like Andrew Jackson. I mean, come on, People, if you want to remove a monument so Flippin badly, then do it civilly; create a petition.
Take the redskins, for example. In certain Native American cultures, a team named Redskins was a racist name. Instead of obnoxiously vandalizing the monument, they signed a petition and civilly changed the name.
Andrew Jackson does not deserve to be the face of the mass-produced, twenty-dollar bill. Andrew Jackson did absolutely nothing for the bank of the United States. Instead, Jackson vetoed the bank. Why put someone who was against the bank on bank currency? I do not know. I know there is a realistic way to fix the mass-distributed racism problem that we have today with the twenty-dollar bill. As an alternative to changing the twenty-dollar account, which is expensive and pointless and will probably have zero effect on our racist society, we should reeducate students at a young age about Andrew Jackson and the racist things that he has done. It’s no secret that high school dropout statistics are a real thing, and if schools wait to teach their students about Andrew Jackson in high school, then most would see him as a founding father and completely ignore the racist things that Andrew Jackson has done. Teaching historical figures to students as good people at a young age might seem harmless, but as the saying goes, if you give someone an inch, they will take a mile. Who knows where they will go with it if you give someone an inch or outright false information at a young age? Case and point, former U.S. president Donald Trump. Donald Trump sincerely believes that Andrew Jackson was the greatest president of all time. I can almost guarantee you that Donald Trump does not know the extent of how racist Andrew Jackson was. If we keep teaching young students about these racist figures and calling them heroes, who knows what will come of us in the future?
I feel like removing historical monuments or renaming buildings after historical figures is a very slippery slope. There are cases where it would be necessary or even beneficial to replace a symbol that honors a horrific event, but there has to be a limit somewhere, or else only a perfect person can be celebrated. This leaves little room in the spotlight for role models that the common person can see a bit of themselves in, and while they could strive for perfection, it will seem that much more impossible. A relatable role model can show someone that mistakes aren’t the end, and being exposed only to perfect figures leads to a bigger sense of being stuck and of hopelessness, and I think our society has enough of that already. Of course, some monuments and historical figures that would seek to glorify events and people that have caused massive and irreparable damage to society should be replaced or destroyed. For an extreme example, we wouldn’t keep up statues of someone like Hitler in today’s world, that would easily be a hostile attack on a large group of people and show that they aren’t welcome simply for existing. It would cause needless hurt for large communities by honoring things that have oppressed them. So, in conclusion, yes, some historical monuments should be removed and some buildings should be renamed, but I think we should keep it to extremes, especially because there are more important topics to focus on that take precedence, and because of the potential harms to come with removing figures that have arguably done more good than bad.
On the topic of Jackson on the $20 bill, I feel like we can keep him there, but conduct better and more thorough education of his legacy. I think that changing money in general would cause a lot of confusion, and to be completely honest, I didn’t even know that it was Jackson on the $20 bill, so I don’t particularly think it would be worth it to change it. In my education experience, Jackson has been one of the “bad guys”, and I think knowing that is enough for me, but I am not Native American, so it’s not really my place to say anything. I personally don’t care enough about who is on the bill, but I do know about Andrew Jackson and what he did and believed, so uh… yeah, keep and educate…
Answering the first question asking about removing historical monuments or renaming buildings after historical figures, I think that removing monuments is not removing history but showing people that we have to correct our views on certain things. For example, removing statues of confederate soldiers is not taking them out of history but people are seeing these monuments as a symbol of racism in our country. Also, removing statues of confederate soldiers should be done because those statues glorify people who tried to conserve slavery in our country. One example of a monument name being changed is in Alaska there is a mountain which is called Denali and it was named by the indigenous groups that lived there. In the late 1800s, the mountain was named after president McKinley to Americanize the name. People were not happy with this decision because it didn’t honor the natives that lived on the land and discovered the mountain. In 2015 President Obama announced he was officially changing the mountain to Denali, after the Athabascan group. Having monuments for people who are significant in history is not bad but I think that taking some monuments down wouldn’t be a big deal because we see these people as perfect or a hero, but in reality, a lot of them weren’t and people nowadays don’t know what they’ve done. Take Thomas Jefferson as an example, he enslaved more than 700 people and he promised they would be freed when he died, but they weren’t. A lot of people see Thomas Jefferson as the third president of our country, but they don’t see all the not-so-great things he did because we display him as such a great person.
To answer the second question I think the most ideal option would be number 2, swap Jackson out with Harriet Tubman, and leave Andrew Jackson to be talked about in history classes. Putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill would honor who she was and what she did to help other people around her. Jackson was a big part of history but not for all good things, he owned many enslaved people, and he vetoed the national bank. If we were to put Harriet Tubman on the bill it would draw attention to Jackson and people who don’t know much about him could learn more about who he was, and what he did. Harriet Tubman helped many people escape slavery, and she’s a woman of color. Having a woman of color represented on a bill would honor not only women but also people of color. If we were to change the $20 bill to have Harriet Tubman, Andrew Jackson would not be forgotten. He would still be talked about in history classes, so people would be able to see all the good things but also not-so-good things he did for our country.
I think removing historical monuments would benefit society. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, many confederate monuments were erected specifically to isolate and intimidate African Americans. Removing these monuments is a good thing, as they once served as symbols of fear for many. By taking down these monuments, we show how we as a society have made efforts to overcome our racist past. In my opinion, the most prominent argument against removing confederate monuments is that it is simply unnecessary. However, I would have to disagree. Why would we as a society want to have symbols of hatred in our public spaces? Removing these statues would only make the places we live in more welcoming and inclusive. Many also argue that taking down these monuments is erasing our history. This argument makes even less sense. The confederacy is adequately shown in history textbooks and classrooms, there is no need for statues dedicated to confederate leaders.
On the topic of changing the face of the twenty dollar bill, I am somewhat conflicted. I don’t believe there exists a solution that would please everybody. Many people think Andrew Jackson should be removed from the bill, since he forced the displacement of thousands of Native Americans. To decide whether or not to keep Jackson on the twenty dollar bill, we have to consider the criteria set for people to be on currency. Should we expect moral perfection from everyone on U.S. currency, or is popularity and public appeal enough? Personally, I lean towards the belief that the people on our currency should be of good virtue. Allowing people with poor morals to be the face of our currency wouldn’t reflect well on our nation. With this line of thinking, Andrew Jackson would almost have to be replaced, likely by Harriet Tubman. I think that changing the twenty dollar bill to Harriet Tubman would be good. Harriet Tubman is more than deserving of being on it. Putting her on it would also give recognition to black people and women. However, it would be hard to replace Jackson without also replacing Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves. This is what makes this topic so complicated. Many of the people who support the removal of Jackson would not support the removal of Jefferson, since Jefferson is closer to the hearts of many Americans. I think new twenty dollar bills should be printed with the face of Harriet Tubman. I also think Jefferson should stay on the nickel and the two dollar bill, since he was a founding father, and altogether more important to the United States than Jackson.
No matter if we remove names from buildings, holidays, statues, and monuments there will always be people that support it/don’t support it and spark statewide and nationwide arguments. In my personal opinion I think that there are good reasons to remove these things but also reasons to keep them. A reason to remove them/ replace is that they support and glorify people that supported slavery and attempted secession. Another reason is that they remind citizens about racism in the past. One last reason to remove them is that there are tons of other historical figures that could replace historical monuments that better represent our country’s historical progress and the diversity of our country. There are also some valid reasons to keep statues too. In general historical monuments represent our country’s history even though what the monuments portray tend to represent racist things, they still represent history and some things we learn in class. Also removing and replacing historical monuments will cause large amounts of controversy, which can lead to provoked public anger.
In my opinion, I think Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill. For starters Jackson hated paper money and avoided recognizing it as a form of currency while he was president, and he favored gold and silver as a currency. Also, Jackson is responsible for forcibly removing natives from their land, taking thousands of innocent lives during the Indian removal act and trail of tears. Not only was he responsible for tons of lives lost, Jackson also avoided acknowledging the rights that native Americans had during this time. For example Jackson disregarded Worcester v. Georgia during the Indian removal act which disregarded their rights they fought for and won as a sovereign nation. If it is chosen to have Jackson stay on the $20 bill, then we have to make sure to make education more thorough. One way to do this is to make sure people learn about the reasons Jackson was awarded to be on the $20 bill and why he is known as a great american figure, but also to know the truth and all of the truth, that he was responsible for the lives of thousands of innocent native americans. This will help people form better opinions and make sure they have the truth so they don’t feel like they are only learning one side of the story.
To answer the question of removing monuments or renaming buildings, I don’t think people should be idolized and shown off to the point of naming buildings, holidays, or monuments after that person. Everyone, both now and in history, is flawed and has made bad choices that have led to horrible events. I understand why things that happened in history are still having effects today, but there is nothing we can do to change the past. I think that keeping the monuments would continue to idolize them but removing them could be seen as problematic to some people. I think removing the names from these would help to give more awareness to what these people actually did and why they should not be idolized.
I don’t think we should continue to print our former presidents on our money because it is supposed to honor the people we consider to be important. The people printed on our money have done things that have shaped our history and done some good things for our country, but they have also done horrible things to the people of our country. Andrew Jackson has done some good things like create part of the Declaration of Independence and helped the Louisiana Purchase to help us. But because he did a few good things doesn’t automatically make him a good person. He is responsible for many bad things that happened during the time he was president. He destroyed the national bank, he killed several people, and is responsible for the death of thousands of indigenous people. I think more people are now wondering why these people were idolized because there were so many things being downplayed and hidden in what was taught to us. The farther we get in school and the more we are taught about these people in history, we realize the gaps and how what we did in the past caused so many issues. We no longer see these people as role models. I think replacing him with Harriet Tubman and leaving Jackson to be talked about in class is the best option. Jackson was an important person in our history but Harriet Tubman is also a very important part of history. People of color don’t get enough recognition or representation in our history. Having Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill would help us to be one step closer to including people of color in the teaching of our history.
I think the question of what we should do about these monuments and names is a very complicated one to answer. It is important to recognize that these people made some very bad choices which hurt many people. At the same time, no important figures in history are perfect and for most of them the argument of whether or not we should recognize and celebrate them would be very much two-sided. It is also important to note that for better or for worse, our country would not be where it is today without the decisions made and actions taken by these historical figures. I think that it is important to see how the outlook on certain things and people has changed. What once was a monument of celebration and idolization could become a reminder of the mistakes we must be careful not to repeat. I think that if we were to keep these monuments, it would have to be for the right reasons. To continue to celebrate people who fought for the continued enslavement of black people, or who murdered and enslaved thousands of indigenous people is obviously wrong. However, if these monuments were kept to remind and educate people about these mistakes it could be a valuable opportunity because while we cannot go back and change history, we can learn from it. I think that completely removing all controversial names and monuments would have the opposite effect than was intended. As for the $20 bill, this is also a complicated question to answer. Personally I think that the first option is not a very good one. The second and third, however, could both be plausible. I did some research on who is currently on the bills and why/ how they got there. From what I could tell, all of them except two are past US presidents. The two non-presidents are Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.; both very important figures in the founding of our country. From what I found, everyone currently on a US bill was either a founding father, won a really important battle during a war, or signed/ passed a really important document in our country. For the most part, in our country’s history, in order to do one of these things you had to be a white male. Unfortunately, that means that these parameters leave very little room for people of color and women to get the representation they deserve on our money and in general. Because of this I would lean more towards option two. Hopefully, putting Harriet Tubman, a woman and person of color, on the $20 bill would set a precedent that would lead to more representation for minorities such as these.
I believe if enough people want to remove historic statues, buildings, or monuments it should be removed but there must be good reasoning. These historic pieces should not always be destroyed and they could still be stored in places such as museums depending on the size of the historic piece. Andrew Jackson was not a good president. Andrew Jackson owned enslaved people, treated native Americans harshly, and removed them from their lands. Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law. The Indian Removal Act authorized the president to grant lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for the Native lands within American borders. This act killed approximately 4,000 Cherokees giving it the name Trail of Tears. The trail of tears started In the winter of 1831, with the threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be removed from its land altogether. They made the journey to the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) on foot, and without food, supplies, or no help from the government. Andrew Jackson was a strong supporter of slavery. Andrew Jackson owned nearly 100 slaves by the time he was president. Slaves help Andrew Jackson go from poverty to wealth by growing cotton and building and tending to his house. Jackson stood against Abolitionists. Jackson attempted to stop mailings of anti-slavery newspapers by ordering American postmasters to remove all anti-slavery newspapers after congress refused to stop the mailings. Harriet Tubman was an escaped slave and one of the if not most important “conductors” of the underground railroad. Tubman escaped slavery in 1849 and in just two years she was going back to help more slaves escape the south. Tubman’s success led to a 40,000-dollar bounty to be placed for her capture or death. Tubman was never caught in her many missions and never lost a passenger. Harriet Tubman also supported other anti-slavery efforts. Tubman supported John Brown in his failed 1859 raid. Andrew Jackson should not be on the 20-dollar bill. When you compare these two people I believe it is clear that Tubman would suit the 20 dollar bill more than Andrew Jackson, a president who was for slavery and owned nearly 100 as well as killing thousands of Native Americans through his Indian Removal Act. Harriet Tubman was a leader who risked her life for the greater good of America and slaves.
I think that removing figures off of historical monuments is a great idea- unless those historical figures happen to be people who actually made a good impact on the world as it is today. There’s a difference between naming a building after a president just because he was president, and naming a building or a monument after someone that actually made an impact on the world- someone who actually improved it. Important figures like Harriet Tubman, MLK, Ruth Bater Ginsburg, ect. The issue isn’t that the history is outdated, it’s just that the people we’re celebrating aren’t in any way good people. But I also think that the renaming or the removal of monuments can be subjective, and that it’s not that important to take down every monument that has someone’s name on it that we no longer idolize. (I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with that- because I’m all for removing Jackson from the $20. Like I said in the beginning, it’s a great idea, but to an extent.) It’s moving on from there, and changing who we name things after as we grow in our understanding of what happened in the past and how we are learning from it. We can’t change history, but we can move on, and I think that monuments that we create now can be a symbol of that. Nobody cares if he was president, and nobody cares if he had a few flaws here or there. What’s important is their achievements outside of their status, and their contributions to the nation and how it has improved, not declined. That’s when someone’s name should be on a monument- and those are names that we cannot and should not remove. But people like Jackson should be removed, because he in no way changed America for the better.
I think that we should swap Jackson out with Harriet Tubman, because if you think about it, Jackson did nothing to help our nation. Yes, he was the ‘hero of the common man’, but Harriet Tubman was the hero of the slaves, and remains to be the hero of all the African Americans in the nation- because our freedom was made possible through her acts. We owe her. People like that should be celebrated, and people who are blatantly racist and historically selfish shouldn’t. I also don’t think this is a slippery slope, it’s a good thing, and hopefully changing the 20 can begin a movement of changing things for the better.
I think that removing statues of controversial and problematic historical fifgures is a good thing and shows that we can acknowlegde what happened and are taking the appropriate steps to give reprimations. Although i feel that renaming things after people isn’t the greatest of ideas. I don’t think anyone should be put of such a high pedestal because no matter what there will someway be a negative connotation and rumors about every figure, whether true or not, no one is a saint. They can be seen as a heroin in one persons eyes but in the next they could be someone who hurt their people, and have still not acknowledged it. Take christopher columbus for example, He is loved and respected by the Irish- American communities because they had no one else to look up to when they first immigrated to america. They were religiously discriminated against because of their catholic beliefs. The heated debate surrounding if the statue of him should be demolished in respect and response to the backlash he had been facing for the unrightfully displacements and thievery of native american home lands and claiming it as his own. This is just one of the many examples as to why it can be so controversial as to name things after historical figures. When it comes to changing the faces of money and stuff like that, i feel like i wont care either way. Although when presented the options i feel that either the second or third would be the best as well as most respectful. Changing the face to be harriet Tubman sounds like a dream come true and is giving the african – american community the respect as well as honor we deserve though one of our most famous and prominent figures. Not only her being a woman, but it would touch the hearts of many and really show that america is making progress to make things right. However i feel it is also a bit unrealistic, due to the fact of her being a black women. In someways with todays society, it seems as though we are moving backwards, instead of forwards to a better nation. With recent laws and such being passed it’s almost like we have went back to the late 1800’s during the women’s suffrage movements, almost like things never changed. Not only would it likely not happen because of that, it also would be difficult to take all the old $20 bills out of circulation and replace all of them with the new Harriet Tubman bills. No matter how much id like it for the second option, the third is the best and most realistic, for now at least. Keeping the bills the same, but not holding out the truth of the figures that we so dearly idolize.
The argument that removing monuments or renaming buildings is just erasing history is just dumb to me. First of all, these people that are being glorified by making statues after them actively suppressed the learning of the history of people, and suppressed the development of people. For example, Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears, when he forced tens of thousands of Native Americans of the southeast out of their homelands. We’re not erasing history when we remove statues such as those of Andrew Jackson or Confederate leaders. We are simply recognizing the hurt and wrong that those people did, and trying to do the bare minimum of not glorifying them. In any case where people from the past who aren’t looked on good today or Confederate figures, etc. are being preserved through statues or being the namesake of a building, we are glorifying them as good, or even great people. Because when we see a building, we see an accomplishment, and when that accomplishment is associated with a person, we automatically take that to thinking that they were some great, prominent figure. But we shouldn’t be doing that to people who stood for the expansion of slavery, or the expulsion of Indigenous people from their homelands. Removing these glorifications, and trying to promote the history of those who were oppressed, and not those who were the oppressors, will more easily lead to a future in which we can be more equal. If we are more educated, it’s more likely that we’ll be able to know what we should do. Also, I don’t see the removal of statues and the renaming of buildings as purely for political correctness. I see it as happening because we believe in equality and justice, not the promotion of those who do not. If people are able to associate a modern political viewpoint with believing in the promotion of equality and justice, then something is very wrong with those who would oppose whatever political viewpoint that is.
I believe the solution to the debate surrounding Andrew Jackson and the 20$ bill is to replace him with Harriet Tubman on the prints of 20$ bills. I feel that as I look back on Andrew Jackson, I see multiple things that lead me to this conclusion. First, I don’t think the 20$ bill should be associated with someone such as Andrew Jackson, who was the primary force behind the Indian Removal Act of 1830, for example. I think that someone such as Harriet Tubman, would represent what America itself set out to be when it was created. She represents freedom, bravery, strength, and courage very well, all of which I believe are things that were ideals which were desired for America to obtain at its creation. Second, I don’t think that the U.S. paper currency, which is distributed by the federal reserve, is a good place to hold Jackson with us. The federal reserve is the modern equivalent of the 1st and 2nd National banks/BUSs. Andrew Jackson was an extreme opponent of the BUS, killed it himself, and also disliked paper money. So, why would paper money, printed by the federal reserve, similar to the BUS, be a place Jackson would even want to be remembered with. He simply wouldn’t, so why would we go against what even he believed, by keeping him on the 20$ bill.
The argument against removing monuments is that it is “Political correctness”, making decisions to not offend anyone. I see no problem with political correctness. If the representation of historical figures afends a large amount of people, there is a valid reason why. America should follow its own ideal of appealing to the people. Removing historical monuments does not erase history as people fear, it simply doesn’t give representation to people who don’t deserve to be represented. Removing a monument does not remove a person from history, no matter what the impact they made during their life remains. Times change, today racism is not tolerated as it was before, which is why people want it removed now. I think people need to be willing to accept the change that newer generations bring. Moving onto Andrew Jackson, the argument that he adopted an Indian boy during his removal of the Indians is not a good argument. Jackson adopting this single boy does not account for the 4,000 Native Americans who died during Jackson’s Indian removal act. In my opinion Jackson was not an advocate for the common man because he was not an advocate for African Americans or Native americans. Our seventh president like many other presidents owned upwards of 100 slaves and viewed Native americans as needing guidance from white people. In addition Andrew Jackson did not do anything to improve voting for African Americans, only white men. If Andrew Jackson does not respect minorities then he is not an advocate for the common man. I believe that Jackson should be replaced on the bill. Personally I do not know who I would want to replace him, however I know there are a variety of people who deserve to be represented after being overshadowed in history. There are so many amazing figures with their names unknown. Representation and acknowledgment needs to be given to those who deserve it. African Americans for example have had their achievements stolen by white people. Credit absolutely needs to be given where credit is due.In schools the reality of Andrew Jackson’s legacy should be transparent, and I believe this should be done with all history.
I think that we should remove historical monuments and change the names of buildings that are named after historical figures if what the historical figure represented was wrong. I like the idea of removing monuments of people that represented bad things like slavery. I think it is perfectly okay to remove statues of people that were representing the confederacy and the institution of slavery. I would want to get rid of statues of those people because for all the progess we have made for equal rights we still are showing slavery through those statues. In my opinion, if we keep monuments of people who represent the confederacy we are honoring them for what they did and fought for. That is totally wrong to honor them for what they stood for because it was horrible for what they did to African Americans. I believe it would be the best thing to get rid of those types of statues and monuments because we are just honoring slavery by keeping them up and we are honoring them for what they did, even though it was really wrong. Though, I think we should keep the status of Washington and Jackson. Even though they did own slaves, they did so much for the country. We should be able to look past certain people’s flaws and horrible decisions and honor them for what they did for the country. Washington was our first president and he led us to victory against the British. While Jackson was for the common man and believed in representing the common man over the wealthy elites. Wven though they did own slaves which was really wrong, that was not the only thing they stood for. They did so many other things for their country that were great even if they did make poor decisions. That is what I think about removing historical figures and monuments. Secondly, I think that we should leave Jackson on the twenty dollar bill but conduct more thorough research of him and other historical figures. We should keep Jackson on the twenty dollar bill and celebrate what he did. I think that we should be able to recognize what an important political figure he was for the common man and open up voting rights to the people and not just the wealthy elites. Though, I think we should get more representation from others like Harriet Tubman. We should represent her and other historical figures who had a significant effect on history in our daily lives because they too did play a big role in our history. I think we should keep Jackson on the bill but also realize the flaws that he had and recognize how we can fix flaws in our own society today. I think we should strive to make our country a better place through the mistakes we have made in the past and we shouldn’t be scared to recognize the mistakes we have made. That is my opinion about having Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill.
Renaming buildings after historical figures and having historical monuments are a great way to honor and recognize the people that made our country American. Hoverver, there needs to be a limit for where the line is drawn, on both sides of whether they should or shouldn’t be recognized. As Mr. Wickerhsham stated in his blog, and as stated by someone from “Rethinking History”, “… if we are going to name buildings after people, should we expect them to be perfect?” Removing or adding names to buildings and creating monuments comes with dangerous territory because at some point or another everyone has done something morally wrong. This is why learning the full truth and partaking in careful consideration should happen before doing something rash, such as vandalizing or unlawfully removing a monument. Honorary monuments or namings should be removed if their reputation is primarily the bad things they did. On the other hand, monuments representing historical figures, such as Washington and Lincoln, should be kept up to represent that person and how they shaped our country. At the same time, those monuments or plaques should be used to tell the whole truth, no matter how ugly. Using monuments and buildings to represent a person is alright, as long as the full truth is shared and the person is considered deserving to be honored.
As amazing as option two would be, replacing Jackson on the twenty dollar bill with Tuban, it is just not realistic. There are a great deal of twenty dollar bills all across the world with Jackson already on them. It wouldn’t be logical to replace all of them or have two different types of bills. Therefore, option three would work out the best. Jackson and his legacy should be remembered and learned while being taught correctly. Other generations should have the option to assess different historical memorials about past figures, including the people that are representing us on our currency, that we are able to do now but with the whole, correct knowledge. In addition to option three, I think there should be a different way to remember Tubman, more than a renaming of a building or a new monument. Tubman shouldn’t live in Jackson’s shadow by being placed on the twenty dollar bill. She should have her own, unique way of being remembered that is spread throughout the country.
For the first question, I think it’s acceptable to put people’s names on stuff but it’s risky, let’s say we put someone’s name on a building and it stays that way for fifty years, there’s a new fight for something and society changes and suddenly that buildings name isn’t acceptable for the societal norms of the time so to name buildings after people you need to be calculated in your actions. Second about removing historical monuments I think it depends on what, many monuments in the south that were removed in the BLM exercises were statues of traitors of our country so those make sense to take down and I will stand by the people who took those traitors faces off our monuments, but on the other hand some monuments were removed or desiccated of people or groups of people that did not necessarily do anything wrong or whose rights outweighed their wrongs, and many of those instances made no sense. And for question number two I would mostly agree with number three for a few reasons. First off number one is flawed because as we recover more and more artifacts from these people’s presidencies we uncover more about them that’s not always covered in history books because its new information and the publishers won’t republish for every new piece of information, so many of the things that are uncovered are bad actions. For number two I think Andrew Jackson was too influential in American history to be taken off our money. Also, why Harriet Tubman why not Frederick Douglas or William Lloyd’s garrison, or Angelina Grimke? These people fit many of the same lines as Harriet Tubman and did many great things for our nation. I’m not trying to diminish Harriet Tubman’s image, just questioning your choice. Jackson also revolutionized the ways we interact with other countries and set presidents on how Americans view the government. He may have done many bad things but that shouldn’t diminish his image. And that moves me on to number three, just because he did things that hurt America doesn’t mean he did not do good things as well, we shouldn’t hide this part of his history. We should accept it and try to right his wrongs to make sure that it’s not too biased. I recognize the slippery slope argument of why nor just reface all of our money, some parts make sense, like if some people don’t want Jefferson on a bill why not Lincoln for not believing that black people should be free but not have the same rights as white people, in contrast however finding enough people as influential to American history and figures that did not have as many perceived flaws would be a painstaking process and as well reprinting all of the money and taking it out of circulation would be a long and arduous process. In conclusion, Jackson was too important to be taken off, he did many important things for America however he also did bad things, that should not diminish his image it should just be taught more.
We shouldn’t limit the number of buildings/monuments named after historical figures because history is significant in the United States. I do think we should be more careful about who the historical figures are and what they stand for. The message people spread is the most important factor in determining how we should handle the removal of buildings/monuments of historical figures. It is very important that if we do remove these historical monuments it is for the right reasons and not and not offending anyone. I 100% believe that most of the confederate statues and monuments should be removed and there should be no debate about it. The people who cling to these monuments should be educated about what these historical figures were doing and that it was treason.
Moving over to the Andrew Jackson $20 bill controversy I think it is pretty obvious what we should do about this. There should be no glorification of what Jackson did so he does not deserve to be on a currency that is something that is used and sought after. It is important to teach people about what Jackson and his supporters were doing so something like the trail of tears never happens again. Keeping a figure like Jackson is just very disrespectful to the Native Americans in this country. I think the best option is to replace him with a figure that was an activist or leader. The example was Harriet Tubman which is perfect in my opinion as it gives a black activist but it also gives a woman. In the United States representation is everything as it can make a person feel important and make them feel like they fit in. This could help the Black/Women community get some more representation. I think we need to do a better job of showing the pros and cons of our historical figures. An example is Thomas Jefferson who penned “all men are created equal,” in our country’s declaration of independence but owned around 600 slaves. American historians tend to put only the good into the books and leave out the bad to be forgotten.
The topic of whether or not we should remove historical monuments or stop renaming buildings after historical figures is widely controversial. I believe that no matter how much you look into a person there will always be negative or unfavorable parts about them. The idea of naming a building or putting up a historical monument that revolves around a person gives off the impression that they were an overall, well rounded person. Typically, people displayed in such a way are people you should look up to. What’s the point of highlighting a person that has done bad things? I’m not saying that everyone needs to be perfect but why should we excuse some of the horrible things past leaders have done to focus on the good things they did. For example Andrew Jackson paid off our national debt and established new land for the United States. What’s not talked about as frequently is the fact that he initiated the trail of tears/ Indian removal act. This was the forced removal of over 10,000 Indians to the western part of the US. He also caused the corruption of the second BUS and the nullification crisis. On top of that he is portrayed in multiple statues and is represented on our $20 bill. I think we should replace the urge of naming places after people with naming them after Ideas. Hope College is the only college in the US that is named after an idea, not a person. Following the trend of replacing this Leads into the second question, Should Jackson remain on our $20 bill? Out of the three options you gave us I immediately want to go with number 2. This would include replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman. This not only would honor the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote but it would also bring needed representation into the african american community. The only issue with that is that people will most likely rebel against the removal of a historical figure who has been positively represented for such a long time. An important step in the removal of Andrew Jackson from the bill would be to educate as many people as possible. The older you get the harder it is to reroute the things you were taught and have grown up believing. Now I’m not saying older generations are a lost cause but starting young is very beneficial. Relating back again to our Christopher Columbus discussion, it’s important to teach kids the effects historical figures had on history. It’s key not to idolize them. In conclusion, I think Jackson should ideally be removed from the $20 bill and replaced with Harriet Tubman. This should be followed up with increased education specifically about Jackson.
When it comes to whether controversial monuments should remain or be taken down, I’m torn both ways. For example, in the South many statues of confederate leaders exist. When something is made into a monument it shows that this person or something has done something valiant enough that they deserve to be remembered and honored. Many people have called for the removal of these statutes because we know that the confederacy stood for the enslavement of blacks and supported racism against them. We also see statues of people such as Washington and Jefferson still standing. We are aware that these men have done so much for our country to shape it into what it is today but, these men weren’t perfect. Behind the good, Washington and Jefferson were both slave owners. So this brings me to the conclusion of where do we draw the line for keeping these statues up? Another question is that some statues may represent personal history for locals who wouldn’t want these statues taken down. So when it comes to the main of question of should we remove monuments, I think that if a statue represents something so dark, such as a statute representing slavery it should be removed. When I say removed I do believe these statues should be preserved. Even though they represent a dark past, history is history and it’s important to educate people on what we used to be and the land we live on. When it comes to a statute of Washington for example, if something represents more good than bad they should stay up. It’s also important to educate the people on not just the good of these people but also the bad. It’s important to know that human nature is not pretty but some have shown way more good than evil and they deserve to be remembered. Using the same logic I talked about in the first question, I believe that Jackson should be swapped with Hariet Tubman on the $20 bill. When it comes to good outweighed the bad, Jackson doesn’t apply. For starters Jackson was a slave owner and an advocate for the removal of Native Americans. Jackson forced Native Americans out of their ancestral lands and forced them to relocate. He removed the Native Americans because he wanted more land for white settlers to have. Jackson also single handily murdered the economy of the US. He overused his presidential authority of veto and got rid of the second BUS. Removing the BUS led America into a massive economic depression. Though Jackson was a war hero from the War of 1812, he did way less for America than he gave in return. Using this logic, Jackson Should be removed and replaced with Harriet Tubman. Tubman was an escaped slave and a prominent abolitionist. She had risked her life to take part in the underground railroad, a system of houses traveling north to help slaves escape. Tubman put her life on the line for many people that she could relate to and her good deeds should trump the horrible atrocities Jackson had committed. With this said Harriet Tubman should replace Jackson on the $20 bill.
Many of the most significant historical figures in the United States’ relatively short history were slaveholders or active advocates for slavery. When looking back at the periods during and following the revolutionary war, an overwhelming number of slaveholders are celebrated as our country’s heroes. With slavery being such a large part of U.S. history, it’s hard to not have them surrounding us because during the time period it was not as frowned upon to own slaves. But I believe that in the 20th century when monuments are being built and schools are being named after these men in an effort to furth oppress African Americans, a massive problem arises. The tearing down and renaming of these same structures that were made with ill intent is a positive thing for America. Having a monument to someone who is now known to be a terrible person comes off as though they are still celebrated. In modern society, there is no need for a statue of a confederate war general in the middle of a town in the south. From what I’ve gained from the information in the blog, many monuments were built and buildings were named after confederate army personnel and slaveholders in an attempt to try and enforce the thought to African Americans that that is what was right. We are taught the history of all of these events and people, there is no need for things that may reinforce the ideals of slavery in any community. These advocates for slavery are seen more in everyday life than commonly conceived. Andrew Jackson’s face has been on the 20-dollar bill for nearly 100 years. Putting him on it was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of his election. I believe that he should be replaced. I back the argument that Harriet Tubman should be the one to replace Jackson. Though many people are trying to argue the thought that we should not be replacing Jackson due to the whims of “cancel culture”, they don’t realize that people are just now starting to have a voice against how terrible of a person he was. This argument goes to show how normalized we have made such bad people become. The replacement of Jackson and the introduction of a bill with an African American woman on it would be more of a testament to the America we live in today. One where not every American “hero” is an old white man. While the argument of this point brings up the historical figures that we still do widely celebrate today, such as Washington and Jefferson, it’s hard to understand the line at which we have to draw renaming. I’m still not completely sure how the benefits of Washington being the revolutionary war general and first U.S. president outweigh the negatives of him being a slave owner.
Before reading this, my knee-jerk reaction was just to say that of course we should remove certain monuments or rename buildings, but now I’m actually not so sure. I kind of understand what the opposing side to my original opinion is saying in a sense, in the way that I wonder where we draw the line at things to replace, and the true motivations for doing such things. However, I still think are some things we should remove. I think it’s fine to commemorate or memorialize people, but I don’t think we should overly idolize them. It’s certain things that just bother me, for example schools being named after confederate generals or stuff like that. I was thinking it over and to me, even though they may have been some great fighter that gave up their life for a cause, we should not commemorate them in such a way since the cause was literally to secede from a union that did not want them to participate in enslaving people. I read something one time about people fighting to get a statue of a doctor who performed invasive and experimental surgeries on black women taken down. It’s in cases like that where I think something definitely needs to happen, but I can accept a statue of a widely influential president remaining up even if they thrived off of slavery, as long as we acknowledge their wrongdoings.
I personally think that the best option in theory would be to replace Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, but I don’t know if it’s possible. The only way I can really see to conduct something like that is to vote on it, but I think even then some trouble would arise. I feel like a lot of people would get really mad, and say things like Trump did but a lot more racist and not respect Tubman at all. After the insurrection on the capitol and a lot of other uprisings against certain political decisions and even just circumstances (like those armed guys standing outside of the voting thing that you showed us in class on the Socratic seminar day) I’ve just been really scared of the reaction people may have to any new decisions being made, but I also don’t think it is a good idea at all to base political decisions on fear. Also though, I don’t really agree with the idea that it would be confusing or something to have bills out with a few different faces on them since it would take a while to get all of the Jackson bills out of circulation because they changed how the two dollar bill looked a while ago and that didn’t seem to confuse anyone. So, if it was up to me and my beliefs, I would change the $20 and put Tubman on it, but I think if this were to actually happen it might, unfortunately, cause a lot of uproars. That however is not a good reason to not do something as meaningful as this, so I still think they should change it.
1. I believe that removing historical monuments and renaming buildings after controversial historical figures should happen. Maintaining names of historical figures as the names of buildings and establishments and keeping statues and monuments of horrible people perpetuates a false idolization of figures who don’t deserve it, especially since they contributed to the suffering of many different minorities and people across the country. For example, Jackson was considered to be one of our “greatest” presidents, fought in the War of 1812, and was an exceptional war general, but he was still a horrible person in so many different ways. He was the cause for the Trail of Tears, pro slavery, and removed the Second Bank of America with cause the Panic of 1837. This isn’t someone we should be idolizing and having him on the 20$ bill and keeping monuments of him further idolizes him. Rather than naming these establishments and having these historical monuments for controversial and horrible people like him, we should make them for people who have impacted our country for the better. Commemorating people who suffered for this country and impacted it to thrive and be where it is today while helping contribute to our community will help it be a better place rather it spreads further diversity or helps give our future generations someone to look up to for the better. That being said, we still need to talk about those horrible and controversial people to make sure we don’t erase history and sugarcoat it.
2. I think that removing Jackson off the 20$ bill and replacing him with Harriet Tubman would be beneficial and I’m very very supportive of it, however, at the same time, there are problems with how it will be executed. Harriet Tubman is a remarkable woman who deserves to be commemorated for what she did to help other slaves and with the Civil War and just putting her on the 20$ bill honestly isn’t enough, but it’s a start. Having her there will push towards the inclusion of other minorities such as people of color within our history classrooms and our environment as a whole. Although with her actually being on the bill itself, with the amount of money that’s currently in circulation, finding Tubman on the bill would be very rare and not many people would be able to see her on there but if there’s a chance to have her on there and for people to see her, it should happen. Taking Andrew Jackson off the bill would allow more education about his part in American history, good and bad and also make sure we add further diversity within our community.
I think that we should not have hateful names behind our institutions, because that is what will be representing them. Do we want to be represented by these people? What have they accomplished in their lives? What were they a symbol of? What do we want to represent? These are all questions that we must ask ourselves while naming an institution. For example, I think that naming a school after a war general is absurd, because that is not what an institution of education should be represented by. Especially when the people inside aren’t learning that general’s full history. Instead, naming it after an idea, a place, or a scholar makes much more sense. Someone that the people attending the institution will look up to and be glad to be represented by.
Personally, I think that president Jackson being on the twenty dollar bill makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, it is ironic because he did not like the central bank, or printed money. Why does he now represent these things that he so thoroughly rejected during his lifetime? In my opinion, rethinking who should go on the twenty bill is a very good idea, and overdue. President Jackson does not represent the twenty dollar bill, and we should find someone new to put on our money, someone that we all can agree on being good to represent us and our currency as a nation. If that figure happens to be Harriet Tubman, then I think that it is a good idea. She represents freedom and perseverance. We can connect these ideals to how we observe and use money and the bank, as well as be proud of her image when we look at our money, and feel a sense of national pride.
Backtracking to Jackson being on the twenty dollar bill, I think that if we learned more about him as a country and became more educated about his actions and ideals, we would only want to take him off of our money even more, because he is definitely not an ideal candidate for representing our nation’s paper currency from our national bank. I am not saying that we should not be proud of Jackson or his actions, but in this scenario he does not represent money well, and the icon on the twenty dollar bill should be changed.
My thoughts on removing historical monuments or renaming buildings after historical figures is that getting rid of historical statues and buildings should be up to the local government, and should not be a decision made by the national powers. I agree with the opinion that getting rid of statues representing historical figures that did more harm than good would be a good idea, but if the majority of the community in that area disagrees, it would be fair to let them keep it, because, after all, they will be the ones seeing it a lot more than me, and if it makes them happy, I can’t argue. On the other hand, if the local government votes yes to remove the historical statues or rename the buildings that may signify some kind of hate, they should go right ahead. My opinion on the removal of Jackson from the twenty-dollar bill is this: We should remove all political figures from United States currency. The fact that any of them is on the bill will create the most controversy, but I think my alternative will result in the most peace within the nation. I believe this because nobody likes chaos and controversy, and if that were to create some kind of riot or violent protests, similar to what has happened in our history with things like the 2020 election, that would be very troublesome. Our nation, in most people’s and my opinion, is that the nation is very divided right now, so we do not need more disagreement between groups of people in our nation. The argument made by the vice president in 2017, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin “right now we have a lot more important issues to focus on” was unfair because public opinion should never be silenced, and making our country happy is very important, but this does not mean Jackson should be the only one to be removed. I think it would be smarter to put symbols that represent all of the U.S., such as an eagle, the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, and Mount Rushmore. Overall, we should consider removing all political figures from the United States currency to help start our nation’s political parties go from division into peace as they once were.
I think that we should stop trying to erase history. Almost every influential person in the making of the US has done horrible things. Whether it be the owning of slaves, the ruining or the American economy, murdering thousands of Indians, you name it, some historical person has done it. One of the most complex things about humans is that none of us are unflawed, every single on of us has done something we regretted whether it be personally or as a group. But trying to condemn peoples legacy to being erased because of something they did in the past is no way to go about it. Idols are people who don’t represent the most pure person to exist, they represent humans, flaws perfections and all. And if we try to hide these things by just getting rid of everything from statues to a picture on a bill than what does that do? Nothing. All that would do is hide a person who has a lesson to teach. And while Jackson was not a perfect man, let alone a good man, he still represents some good too that deserves to be remembered. Overall I think humanity would be better focusing on how to write history, not trying to erase it. Also when I say “a picture on a bill”, it really is that simple. I’m willing to bet if showed all pieces of currency to a random on the street, they would not care for a second who is on that bill, all they see is money they can spend. To follow up, people should not only be remembered by bad things they have done, they should also be remembered by the good things they did. One persons response mentions how “I’m still not completely sure how the benefits of Washington being the revolutionary war general and first U.S. president outweigh the negatives of him being a slave owner” but in my opinion this is the wrong way to think of it. Washington was a human just as us with his own views and bad choices and we can’t change that, but he wasn’t just some revolutionary general. He was the first president who set a baseline for what a president should be and how government should be ran as a freedom. The entire ideology of what America has become today was created by the so called “old white men” so as some people would say, show some respect!
I feel that removing monuments, and renaming things are good practices, but overused. Some people can be seen in the eyes of everyone or many as pure evil, people such as Hitler for instance, if there is a statue of him anywhere then you best believe that the vast majority of people, the vast vast majority, would have it torn down in an instant without refutation. Now, people such as Jackson, Jefferson, and even Columbus, while not nearly as disgraceful as Hitler in any sense were all still pretty terrible people, the only issue I find is that not everyone can agree on that, and to allow for people to agree, they should be informed, their pasts must be brought up. Most people wouldn’t even bother to do a tiny bit of research into someone depicted on a statue, but it brings that figure to their attention, and if we can utilize that attention-grabbing aspect of statues to inform on their bad, and hidden history, then it would damage the legacy of that figure more to just keep the statue up. Now, renaming buildings I can agree on completely, with the practice really having no use or potential use other than raising up said person, and if the person’s past is not appropriate, then their name should definitely be taken down. I think that Andrew Jackson should be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. The controversy that surrounds Jackson is upsetting to many, and leaving him on the bill has and will cause much unnecessary drama considering he was a slave-owning racist and really shouldn’t have been on there in the first place. Just for the sake of avoiding the backlash, there should be that swap, but we can also take into consideration who would seem to be more morally correct on that bill, which gives us two options. Option one: Jackson, the slave owner who beat said workers, along with being the man behind the Indian removal act which forced tens of thousands of natives to leave their homes and move west, with many dying along the brutal journey. Or option 2: Harriet Tubman, the woman who dedicated her life to freeing enslaved peoples, making several journeys back to Maryland to help free more and more enslaved, while also working for the union army. So clearly, Tubman deserves much more than Jackson to be on the bill, and this change would also settle people down on the whole issue, so, in my opinion, the best option is gonna be swapping Jackson out for Tubman.
I think it is a great thing to name buildings after historical figures because it helps the people have a part of history around them. I think some people would not be suitable for sure but if we look at the good things that historical figures did and not the small part that was normal at the time that these people did once then it is fine. Historical figures should be remembered for their achievements and the change they made because every single person that ever existed has done bad things that people would think is bad. We also have to consider that many of the bad things that historical figures did were more acceptable at the time and their may have been other factors making them do these things. Buildings being named after historical figures can help educate people and connect them to history. Statues being removed is something that I think is appropriate when enough people in our society think that the statue is offensive and doesn’t align with todays ideas. For example a confederate leader statue who fought for slavery should be torn down because it gives glory to someone who’s main purpose was fighting for slavery.
I think thst Jackson should be taken off the 20 and replaced with Harriet Tubman. I think this because Jackson can be seen by many as a bad historical figure who did not help the country and Harriet Tumban should be recognized more for what she did and what she represents. Andrew Jackson in my opinion was not good for the US because he removed the second Bank of America and treated the indians poorly. Morally, Jackson made decisions that were unfair and did not take other people into account. For example the indian removal act and supporting an economy based on agriculture using slave labor. Harriet Tubman on the other hand is a fanstastic historical who did amazing things to help slaves during the slave trade in the south. Harriet Tubman represents freedom and oppurtunity which is a great thing to see everyday on a 20 dollar bill. I hope that president biden or people in the future will put this into effect to better our society and what our country represents.
I think historical monuments that are outdated, or represent violence should be removed. Said monuments represent real people that had an effect on our country. If the effect was bad, why should we respect them? Why should we let them stand knowing what they stand for? We shouldn’t. They should be taken down and forgotten, or replaced with monuments of people like Harriet Tubman, that kickstarted the true growth of America. I think renaming buildings after historical figures is valid, but I think it should be talked about with the community where most, if not all would be satisfied with the decision. I also think it would be beneficial to just not name buildings after people unless they were the founder of said buildings. Schools do that and I think it’s very effective.
I think Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill and replaced with Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman is a true American hero, because she helped enslaved black people have a chance to experience life, to not be sold or bought, to not be owed because she knew that no one deserves that. She created a complicated network, The Underground Railroad, to help them to safety. Andrew Jackson on the other hand, he owned over one hundred slaves, yet there was no consequence. We should not support owning other people, we should be supporting the human beings that suffered. Some may say, “well it’s just money, what’s the big deal?” The big deal is that Jackson supported black people being killed, tortured, raped, sold, and bought. No one like that should ever be seen or acknowledged. The people who should be seen and acknowledged are the ones that saved the people that were victim to the torture. It has been a debate that if we are replacing Jackson on the 20 dollar bill, then should we replace Lincoln on the penny and the 5 dollar bill? I think we should. I stand by the fact that we should not support people who facilitate murder. By leaving these men that did terrible things on our currency, we are allowing them to represent us as a country.
I personally think that Thomas Jefferson was the better democrat even though he had many shortcomings and problems during his presidency. Jefferson had a main goal to protect the American people and help them, while Jackson didn’t have that in mind and had other goals such as combating economic issues and some of the monopolies of wealth during the time. Jefferson and Jackson also had different ways of forcing change, for example Jefferson disagreed with the ideas of having a Bank of the US, but let it go and continue while Jackson just took it down and didn’t let it continue just because it wasn’t something he agreed with. In addition to this, many of Jackson’s decisions were based on his personal beliefs and not for the sake of the country, which was supposed to be a main idea of the democratic party. One great thing that Jefferson did during his long presidency was the Louisiana Purchase. Although many people may say that Jefferson was going against the idea of checks and balances by not really consulting with the congress about the purchase before going through with it, the positive effects outweigh the negatives by a lot. The country grew a ton and this helped farmers to be able to farm on new land and create a solid economy for the nation. A main view of Jefferson’s was that he and the other officials were “carrying out the will of the people”, which was the exact opposite of what Jackson was doing as President. He was self centered and wasn’t making choices for the good of the nation.
Jackson did do some good which includes the fact that he thought the average American could make an educated decision and be able to vote. He disagreed with the idea that you need to own property to be able to vote which did help to develop the country. The main issue with Jackson though is that he had a habit of just ignoring the Supreme Court and vetoing whatever cases he thought was necessary. He ignored a total of 2 cases and ended up vetoing about 12. This is a form of abusing his power as president. This just proves that Jefferson was a better democrat and why Jackson wasn’t.