Andrew Jackson on the $20

Actually he didn't. The policy you speak of was not built by Jackson and it was voted on by the people. Was it the right thing to do...no, especially not by today's standards. But, you have to look at events in context. Looking at these events (or any events) of the past with the morals and beliefs of the modern day is not an accurate way to look at things. Believe it or not, the relocation of Native Americans was an extremely progressive and liberal idea at the time. I'm not saying it wasn't a terrible event and a lot of people died needlessly...but there was a strong push for true genocide at the time and this event didn't do that.

Jackson did a lot of good for this country. You are right, being involved in the relocation of these people is not one of his finer moments in a historical sense...but he alone wasn't to blame. But, he was a war hero from multiple wars, paid off the national debt, and in many ways embodied the American spirit...especially of that time. However, he was no saint.

I can think of other US Presidents that could easily be placed on the $20 that might seem a little better...but I can find something about each of them that could also be quite disturbing (and that includes TR...as he was no saint either).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mine were too. They told the government they were "black Dutch" and remained in the southern Appalachians until they moved (willingly) to Arkansas. This explains a lot. It explains my stubbornness for one.

 

Great post. I agree 100%.

 

He defied a Supreme Court order just so he could send the Indians west. A good, moral man would have not done that. If Andrew Jackson had been president in Lincoln's time, he would have not issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Jackson is not worthy to be on a roll of toilet paper, let alone the $20 bill.

Stalin did a lot of good for the Soviet Union. He won World War II, despite millions of casualties. If you really want to go there.

 

*shakes head*

Maybe if it had affected YOUR ancestors you would think differently. As I said earlier, my great great great great great grandmother outsmarted the US government by claiming to be "black Dutch". She had to live the rest of her life denying her heritage. This became a secret. Growing up, I was told I had no Native American ancestry. I've done some research and found out they were mislead. My grandpa always told us we were "black Dutch" but the meaning and circumstance of the term was lost over the years.

 

Discussing the question whether a politician should or should not be depicted on money is almost inherently a political debate, I know. But let us try and not digress too much here ...

Christian

 

I agree, since every one had some kind of "issue". Maybe we should just solve it and take all of them off coins and currency.

 

Love the "Black Dutch", sounds like they were as clever as my ancestors. Similarly on my mom's side of the family my ancestors were able to pass as white. My great great grandmother was given up for adoption, she was half Cherokee but passed as white because she had blue eyes and dirty blonde hair with more of an olive complexion. Nobody even talked about being Native American in that part of my family until my great grandmother was in her 90s and I was doing family history research. She was a gold mine of information on all the characters in my family history - she was one of the last known living children of a Civil War veteran, she was born when her dad was 70 years old! If she wasn't in on the history she knew all the characters later on.

 

This issue was political at the time, but it is now historical. Everything is political in the present, including contemporary coins. I just can't believe that anybody would defend Jackson.

 

lets not forget that when Andrew Jackson was a military general he was sent into Florida to attack the tribes that were raiding US lands. What does Jackson do? slaughters the tribes AND conquers all of Florida from the Spanish. This was in 1818 an the Indian removal act had taken place in 1831 and lasted until 1838.

Why was Jackson not court martialed for this actions in Florida? he is told to thwart off the raiding Seminoles instead he does a full scale invasion of Florida kills off most of the Seminole tribe and blows up a fort suspected of being a safehouse for escaped slaves killing 270 men women and children.

 

Sounds like the other side of my family sir. I am only 45 but my grandfather fought in WWI, and his father served in the Civil War. That side of my family all had men who did not marry until they were past 40, but married a teenager and had 15 kids, so its not very many generations for me to trace back to things like the Civil War or Revolutionary War.

 

It's still a political discussion and I believe it is getting to the point where it violates the rules of this forum. I don't want to break any rules...so, I am going to opt to no longer discuss this topic.

 

I'm sorry Bugo, but you are engaging in a little revisionist history here. If you lived in the South during Jackson's administration, would you have supported the Indian Removal Act of 1830?

Jackson viewed the forced migration of the Indians preferable to the alternative, which certainly would have killed just as many. He could not have predicted that the implementation of the policy would result in genocide.

 

So we can't talk about, say, the change from silver to clad? After all, it was political. What about all the coin design changes that were politically motivated? What about the pictures of presidents on money. Can we not mention them again?

Something that happened over 100 years ago is not political anymore. As I said, it was political at the time but now it's history. They don't teach the Trail of Tears in politics class - they teach it in history class.

Remember, this is genocide we're talking about. Not politics. I haven't seen anybody post anything poltical in this thread.

 

GDJMSP is a bit more lenient on the political rule because just as you said it is difficult to discuss coins and currency sometimes without the politics behind it. As long as we do not get into a wide scale political argument I think we will be just fine.

 

So far most of the arguments have agreed with my take on the matter, and the dissenting opinions have not been political at all.

 

It is a touchy political issue, but quite frankly I do not believe there are many here particularly that are going to agree with what Jackson did. Political figures do not belong on our money for that reason. Think about how what we know now about John F. Kennedy has grown over time. If now with 50+ years of knowledge about all his personal deficiencies, do you think the American public would value having him placed on a newly introduced coin? It is not about his politics, it is about whether he represented American values by spending time with an E. German spy.

What about Franklin Roosevelt? He was put on the dime, and I get the whole March of Dimes campaign and all. But he was put on the dime at a time of emotion over his death in early 1945. Did you know that he was with his mistress when he died in Warm Springs?

And then you would think - oh lets put Thomas Edison on a coin, he was on a Series 701 Military Payment Certificate. But far from being a well known inventor he also quashed other inventors works often nefariously.

Outside of allegories like Lady Liberty, real people often have "baggage". I firmly believe that even Abraham Lincoln's real views on race would be determined to be very backwards to 21st century citizens.

 

Why was Grover Cleveland replaced by Andrew Jackson on the $20 from large size FRN to the '28 Gold Certificates? Other then the design change and size is there a reason why Cleveland was not left on the small size $20's?

 

it would be cool if they did an educational note series like they did a century earlier. Replace jackson with Tesla for 1 year

 

1) the $10 bill has hamilton, the $5000 had madison
2) US grant was also a cocaine addict