Well that last is less than true. Eleanor was to some degree the consolation prize for FDR who first set his sight on Alice Roosevelt; Theodore’s oldest daughter. He more or less settle for Theodore’s favorite niece instead. So Eleanor was unlikely to have married FDR if not for familial ties. However, a better argument is Eleanor drove FDR in his political career and was a strong partner in his rise to power. I doubt FDR would have become President without her.
Grant definitely, but Jackson is the namesake of an entire style/school of democracy- “Jacksonian Democracy”, which strove to put democratic power in the hands of the common man and remove it from the elites.
Well when the decision was made Jackson was considered a hero still. Jackson was a strange one and pretty despicable by today’s standards but he was also a successful populist, bad ass and is the last President to bring our debt to $0. Though the irony of his being against paper money and a national bank always makes me chuckle a bit.
I want him off the $20 bill as I am a man of today and his genocidal acts are sufficient to disqualify him for such honor.
Again, Jackson was not responsible for the Trail of Tears, that was Martin Van Buren.
Jackson was in favor of voluntary removal by treaty and land-swaps. Van Buren forced it by bayonet point and caused many deaths by political cronyism,malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, racism and general incompetence.
The treaty was enforced by Jackson’s successor, Van Buren, who sent 7,000 troops to carry out the relocation policy. Due to the infighting between political factions, many Cherokees thought their appeals were still being considered when the relocation began.[53] It was subsequent to this that as many as 4,000 Cherokees died on the “Trail of Tears”.
No, 'cause then I’d take it for granted that I keep losing track of my twenties…:smack:
How about Nancy Reagan? Not only would it really piss off the Gipper Is God So Put Him On The Ten squad (because she’d “out-rank” him) but she (and her astrologer) was basically the de facto President during the second half of the 1980’s anyway.
At first, as a non-USian, I’d have gone easily with Tubman. When I first read the name Sojourner Truth I thought she was some sort of indie-folk singer.
Having read about her now, it’s toe to toe with good ol’ H T.
If we’re nominating living musical frontliners, I’d say Chrissie Hynde*, 'cause y’know, if you’re still throwing twenties around and thinking you’re rich, clearly you’re just a Pretender.
This is nonsense, FDR was one of the best politicians this country ever produced and one of the most ambitious. He ran for vice president when he was 38. In 1932 he won the most lopsided presidential race since James Monroe. He was not someone who needed to be pushed into politics and he would have won office in 1932 no matter who his wife was.
Why should the purpose of who is on the money be to encourage women? Why can’t it be to honor the people who accomplished great things for our nation. If we have to wait until a women deserves that honor, isn’t that a better message to send than you don’t have to be have great accomplishments if your the right sex?
If the purpose of having a women on the currency is to encourage other women, why honor Harriet Tubman, Parks or Roosevelt? I don’t think women nowadays need to be encouraged to lead escaped slaves to Canada, start bus boycotts, or marry rich future politicians.
Dozens of women, at least, have accomplished truly great things for the nation, while also embodying some quintessential aspect of our country. It’s embarrassing to me as an American that we don’t recognize this more widely.
I recommended Nellie Bly, a self-made woman and entrepreneur.
Of course, a lot of this comes down to how you describe it. You could just as easily say that Gandhi (if one is to believe the movie) is largely famous for starving himself at every opportunity, and that since India has split off from the UK, there’s no longer any value in holding him up as someone impressive. I just doubt that very many people would agree with that presentation. If most people hold Tubman to be impressive, then probably they’re seeing something that you don’t.
