I do admire some things about Andrew Jackson, like the fact that he refused to polish a British officer’s boots and his opposition to the bank. He was sort of an early populist president. Also I don’t think he was that bad looking. I think they should just put random presidents on the 20 - have it be totally random. Like, some of them could have Warren Harding, and some of them Franklin Pierce, or Chester Rutherford or Pat Buchanan or whoever.
Clearly, then, the only logical choice is Taft.
What is goodwins law? “Keep your mitts off the orchids”?
You have a right to your opinion, however wrong it may be. I’ll give you that hitler was a far more succesful scumbag. But they are both in the same league. Neither should be on our money.
I don’t think Pat Buchanan has been elected yet 
The bill’s not big enough.
Dachau, in my families case.
Not that we didn’t oppress our share of serfs “back in the day”, I am sure.
I admire some of what Andy Jackson did and stood for, and despite his many faults he had greatness. Judging him by today’s standards is Presentism. ** Captain Amazing** made an excellent point.
To hell with that
I just did a search, you’ve this nonsense before and my response then bears repeating. It has NOT A DAMN thing to do with todays standards.
The murdering backstabbing bastard violated the laws and standards of HIS time. Today’s standards don’t enter into it
THIS IS AS OFFENSIVE as making excuses for Hitler by saying “He made the trains run on time, and we cant judge what he did to the jews by todays standards” That this kind of apologist drivel occurs on this board makes me ill.
we sure as hell can hold him to reasonable human standards. What he did was wrong. It was wrong then, and he doesnt desrve to be admired.
I am totally on Lib’s side on this issue. Keep it up, old chap.
Cousin toolongdidntreadidontknowjustkiddinglaughingoutloudforthewin! Where on earth have you been? Norway misses you. Spelling bees are a lot less fun, these days.
This was petty, incredibly mean-spirited, and just about the funniest thing I’ve read all week.
Considering that Jackson hated paper money, putting him on the bill that’s churned out by ATMs might be thought of as revenge.
Andrew Jackson was a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch. And while Liberal may be getting repetitive on the subject, he’s not wrong. It may be becoming almost a schtick for Liberal, but he has every right and better reason than most to keep repeating it as often as he likes. I may think he’s incomplete, in his condemnation of the man, but that’s very far from saying he’s wrong.
As someone who can admire the way that the Mongols ruled their empire, while condemning them for how they gained that empire, I have to admit that there are things about Jackson I do appreciate. Even after discounting his real military contributions. If nothing else, his ability to separate the individual from the group, as shown by his adopted son. (And if you think that’s not a remarkable thing, just ask yourself this: Would John C. Calhoun ever have considered such an act?)
The biggest reason that I dislike the hatred all going towards Andrew Jackson is because he then becomes a scapegoat, in the ancient sense of the word: a sacrifice for the communal guilt. Blaming any single President for the Trail of Tears ignores the reality that the US wasn’t willing (nor, do I think it was able) to police itself to respect the Cherokee land claims. And the majority of the population of the States acquiesced to this. The Trail of Tears was not imposed upon the Cherokee solely by the actions of Andrew Jackson.
Ulysses S. Grant’s Indian policies were responsible for as many or more Indian deaths than Andrew Jackson, yet I don’t hear anybody griping about Grant on the $50 bill.
Perhaps that’s because so many of us seldom see one?
That was Mussolini.
(By the way, when you find where I defended Hitler, or even Jackson, please let me know.)
Or perhaps it’s because it’s not fashionable to discuss Grant’s role in the decimation of Indian nations in the West in the same way that it’s intellectually fashionable to condemn Andrew Jackson.
Hey, if this economic shit keeps up the 50 will soon be the new 20.
Actually, I rarely see a $20. 95% of my transactions are electronic or via checks (for rent).
Well, or most of the Presidents of the 18th and 19th centuries. None of them have particularly admirable records when it comes to dealing with the Indians. There’s a reason Helen Hunt Jackson called her look at US-Indian relations “A Century of Dishonor”
There’s a lot of blame to go around when you’re talking about US policy toward the Indians.