I want to see a U.S. bill with the likeness of the Android Maria from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. The whole bill could have an art deco motif. The back could depict the Empire State Building with a dirigible moored to the top.
Now that would be a fun bill to spend. In fact, make it the twenty, more fun that way.
Jefferson was a lesser man for this reason and others than John Adams. I would not call him evil however. Why give this brilliant man a complete pass. The other great men of his time showed him how it should be done. Adams fought verbally against slavery his entire life. Washington freed every slave he owned upon his death. Franklin never participated in this evil act. Were these not the leaders of foremost men of the founding fathers? Why did only Jefferson never free his own slaves? He was not as great a man as many believe.
What Jackson did was dirty and horrific even in the “dark ages” known as the 1830s. Seriously, this was not a mere war of aggression, this was a land grab of a nearly defenseless people that were trying to assimilate but had the misfortune to have good lands in a state that had seen it population explode in a short time.
The land steal could have been done more humanely, but they just did not care. The people of the time largely ignored the rights and the plight of the Cherokees as they were “godless savages”. However they were far from being savages. Many were now "Christian”, they had built schools and churches.
I’ll repeat this quote from the other thread:
Incidentally, the treaty that Jackal secured to passify Marshal was gotten through the appointment of an unauthorized puppet chief (Ridge) that he then bribed. John Ross was the elected Cherokee Chief, whom the Indian Hater had thrown out of the White House with threats of retaliation after he dared to beg for mercy for his people…
I’m going to stop here and not come back to the thread. For the good of all.
Unfortunately, Ross was also arrogant and imperious. Ross did not come to the White House to “beg for mercy for his people” but rather to make demands. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (he was within his rights) but there is a substantive difference between the two descriptions of events.
Jackson did what he thought he had to do to keep the peace. True, when we judge him by virtue of today’s standards and with 20/20 hindsight, he doesn’t look so heroic. Who does?
How will the people of *150 years from now *judge you (and me, too, of course)? They might well think that we are heartless killers due to the fact we eat our fellow animals. We may well be condemned for the genocide of millions of Dolphins. They may think we are racists as we didn’t allow Chimps to vote. We certainly we be judged harshly for driving cars and otherwise ruining the environment. Damn, by tomorrows standards, we are all “rat bastards”. :rolleyes:
In some ways, it’s a measure of how important Jackson was that no one today appreciates him. Jackson represented a very different strain of thinking in American politics, one that lauded the honor, courage, and hard work of Joe Everyman. He was probably much less racist than any other pre-Lincoln president (save possibly John Adams); his own adopted son was an Indian. He reserved his anger for the British, whom he (at least partially correctly) saw as trying to strangle the infant American nation.
Lets goodwinize this now. were comparing genocidal political leaders to Genocidal political leaders…so its valid. It’s like saying the Jews shouldnt bitch about hitler…we shouldnt judge him after all by our modern american values…things were differant in Nazi Germany back then. Its disgusting. I dont expect the Jewish people to forgive and forget and I’m sure not going to.
Put Sequoya on the $20.
I’m out of this one as well…before I get myself in trouble.
I can understand why some feel strongly about Jackson being on US currency, but take a careful look at what you’re objecting to. Check out Jackson’s portrait on the modern twenty. Seriously, is that any kind of dignified portrayal anymore? He looks like a hunchbacked bobblehead. Based on his other portraits, the man was clearly an enormous fop-- do you think he’d be satisfied with that poofy-headed sideshow caricature? Isn’t it more fitting that he should be posthumously insulted by every public cash transaction in America? Each time the Treasury Department redesigns the currency, Jackson gets goofier and goofier… in another few years he’ll be sporting a light-up clown nose as an anticounterfeiting device.
I suspect that one of the reasons Jackson was included in the pantheon of portraits on bills in 1928 was that he was the first Democratic to become president, the first westerner and the first true southerner (I know that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all from Virginia). Some historians, too, consider Jackson to be the first populist president who wasn’t a product of the political and social elite.
None of this is to diminish the man’s evils, merely to explain the political reality when the current lineup was selected. There were others selected as well, “These include the $500 bill with the portrait of William McKinley, the $1,000 bill with a portrait of Grover Cleveland, the $5,000 bill with a portrait of James Madison, the $10,000 bill with a portrait of Salmon P. Chase, and the $100,000 currency note bearing a portrait of Woodrow Wilson.” (from the US Treasury FAQ.) Therefore there are three Democratic Presidents (Jackson, Cleveland and Wilson), three Republicans (Lincoln, Grant and Mckinley), three non-presidents (Hamilton, Franklin and Chase) and three who preceeded the two-party system in place in 1928 (Washington, Jefferson and Madison). I would point out that the $2 bill with Jefferson was not issued until the 1970s.
I like the suggestions of putting new figures on Treasury notes, especially those of Mark Twain and Martin Luther King. However, I would suggest political considerations still apply and if the Treasury were to put another 20th Century president on a bill, Republicans would demand Reagan while Democrats would suggest Franklin Roosevelt. Any decision would be determined by politics just as it was 80 years ago.
For the record, the Supreme Court didn’t say his actions were illegal. It said that Georgia’s actions in arresting Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler for entering Cherokee land without a permit from the state were illegal.
The Cherokee had no problem fighting with Jackson against the Creek at the battle of Horshoe Bend, and taking Creek land we forced them to cede to the US. The US was fragile, do remember not only were we still concerned by the British but any stong move by the federal government to protect the Cherokee against the state governments in Georgia and TN very well might have split the union some 40 years sooner. He also did not actually carry out the removal itself, which was handled in a grossly incompetent and criminal manner. I agree that Martin Van Buren has much to answer for the trail of tears. It is mind boggingly simplistic to call Jackson an indian hating monster, any more than you would the dozens of other future presidents who prosecuted campaigns against various indian tribes including Abraham Lincoln.
That said…
I would support his removal from the $20 dollar bill, and would suggest that Theodore Roosevelt be added. For his conservation efforts, anti-trust legislation, revamping our navy and being just one of the coolest guys ever to hold the office.
Also, Andrew Jackson engineered the Irish Potato Famine, and started the Great Fire of London in 1666. Whoa, year of the devil! Two more good reasons to remove this genocidal maniac from our currency.