I was reinspired by a column from the perfect master that came up in GQ today to renew my not-so-serious quest to banish Andrew Jackson from the 20. My well-reasoned, highly researched argument follows:
Jackson was a prick.
Okay. Let’s be specific (and here’s the part where I admit I’m not a historian by any stretch of the imagination and solicit either your agreement or ire. Fire away)
To wit: In addition to the remarkably cold-blooded (but admittedly bad-ass) duel Cecil describes above, he was resonsible for the reprehensible “Trail of Tears.” So we’ve got a guy who killed a man with his bare hands and who effectively ordered the death of at least 4,000 Americans too. Jacksonian Democrats were fond of “Manifest Destiny,” which certainly increased America’s wealth but did so at an immense human cost.
Point is: we see Jackson everytime we go to an ATM. At this point, the $20 is perhaps the most viewed demonation we’ve got. Any cashier will tell you that most use a $20 when they pay cash. I’d just like to see someone worthy on the bill. A Roosevelt maybe. MLK. Julius Irving. Anybody else, really.
First off, duelling was pretty common in those days, and arguably worked out reasonably well for society as a whole.
Second, ascribing Jackson sole responsibility for the Trail of Tears is distinctly lacking in understanding of what actually did happen, which was a far more complicated process and event and basically took place after Jackson left the presidency.
First: Did you read the article by the Perfect Master? While yes, duels were common it would seem that some believe Jackson fought without honor. Not who I want representing my country on our currency.
Second: I admitted as much (ignorance in many aspects of American history) but did not claim Jackson was solely responsible. But, Jackson did sign the “Indian Removal Act” into law and was obviously a proponent of the ToT. In the same way Bush isn’t solely responsible for the Iraq war, he will be rightly linked to it forever, having been the leader of our country at the time as well as a staunch advocate. Same goes here, IMHO. (I recall now that the ToT was indeed after Jackson’s tenure, but, as you’ll note he did sign the law that paved the way).
Third: Okay.
Fourth: My underlying question was: Should AJ be on the twenty? The details you noted out do anything to change my mind
So who’s so much worthier than Jackson as a replacement for the $20? Aaron Burr? (put one of those in your wallet with a $10 and watch the fireworks).
I’ve got it…we can encourage spending and build the economy by putting Dennis Kucinich on the $20. No one will want to hang on to one of those bills any longer than necessary.
Some pertinent facts for consideration, which I raised in that earlier thread:
[ul][li]As of 1829, there were some 18,000 Cherokees. []Of those 18,000, some 6,000 had already migrated west of the Mississippi in response to government inducements to do so. []This left some 12,000 souls occupying the Cherokee Territory in the East, an area roughly the size of New Jersey, straddling the states of Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina. In other words, the Cherokee territory was large, and very sparsely populated.[]The population of US citizens in the East was swelling, and settlers were pushing westward, with or without government permission. Squatters were pouring into Cherokee lands illegally. This had been happening for some time, but with the discovery of gold in north Georgia, what had been a trickle became a flood.[]Though efforts were made from time to time to roust white squatters, the American government simply did not have the resources to control the problem. It certainly could not muster enough soldiers to maintain an airtight patrol along the lengthy Cherokee border.[]Jackson feared violent conflict between white settlers and Cherokee. He had witnessed it before in his youth.[]Jackson was aware that similar problems and conflicts in the North had led to the extermination of other tribes. Jackson frequently expressed his belief that if things continued the way they were going, the Cherokee would face a similar fate.[*]Jackson had fought a war with the British (the War of 1812), in which the British had enlisted disaffected Indian tribes along the American frontier to attack US citizens. Jackson feared (not without justification) that Indian anger along the frontier could be exploited by foreign powers.[/ul][/li]
Jackson’s solution was to offer the Cherokee two options: accept US citizenship, receive an individual grant of land and remain in the East, or remove to the Oklahoma territory, west of the Mississippi.
There were no easy choices.
As I wondered in that thread, what would President Jesus have done?
Secondly: a lot of people. I really do think that MLK would be an inspired choice for the bill and one that pretty much every non-white-hood-wearing American would be in favor of.
I’d favor removing Jackson. I’m singularly unimpressed with the man.
There are a number of people from American history that deserve honoring as much as or more than the current cast of characters.
Teddy Roosevelt, for example. FDR. Eisenhower. Reagan’s place in history is still too soon to tell, but I suspect he will be seen as epochal. Get Jefferson off the $2 and onto something that circulates.
What about non-presidents? George C. Marshall. Henry Stinson. Eleanor Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. Henry Clay. Any of these are more significant than Salmon P. Chase. Are there people in the arts that are such towering figures that they stand for the U.S. in a special way? Who are they?
National Scenes: New York harbor. Mount Rushmore. Yosemite. The Golden Gate. The Mall in Washington. An anachronistic scene of a paddlewheeler going past the Gateway Arch.
If we were to replace Jackson on the twenty, I’d suggest Jackson’s fellow Tennesseean Davy Crockett as a substitue. He was an iconic frontiersman (and thus a good symbolic choice for US currency), and he was willing to sacrifice his political career on principle, standing firmly against the Indian Removal Act in spite of its popularity with Tennessee voters.
As a Brit I certainly don’t like seeing Jackson on my money (1812 and all that), so I would happily replace him with the man on the nearest equivalent (in value) English bank note: Charles Darwin on the tenner. That would cause some fun in this (red)neck of the woods.
Actually, I think it’s time to redecorate the currency generally. Let’s give some other faces a turn in our wallets. There are plenty of historical worthies.
Aren’t there different versions of the same demonination on English notes? Meaning a few different faces on the 10, the 5, etc.? I’d be all for that too.
Sort of. The person keeps being changed. It’s not as if there are multiple versions all being printed. One replaces another. I don’t know if they print both in parallel for a while or if they switch over and then just let the old ones stay around for a few years. Darwin replaced Dickens. More details here.
This would be my choice. While we’re at it, we should increase production/ circulation of the $2 bill; shitcan the penny & increase the production/ circulation of the $1 coin.
I don’t really have that much against Jackson, by the way. Kind of a jerk, to be sure, but an entertaining one to read about.
