Andrew Jackson on the $20

I work at a convenience store, and I live in the old Indian Territory part of eastern Oklahoma (I live and work in Creek Nation.) I see a lot of money, including $20 bills. Every time I see one I think of Andrew Jackson's role in the Trail of Tears and the removal/genocide of the American Indian. Sometimes I'll get so riled up about it that I'll ask a customer if they know anything about Andrew Jackson (most of them have no idea.) Why is this man honored with a spot on one of our most prominent bills when he was a mass murdering monster? There are plenty of former Presidents who aren't honored on a bill or a coin. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind immediately. It makes no sense to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The Federal government was very proud to have been able to systematically destroy the native americans. Which at the time where known as savages who were a threat the the United States. To a modern equivalent of al quada operating in the mid us.

Andrew Jackson is rewarded for his military skill in taking over Florida and I think he did something in the New orleans in the war of 1812 but maybe that was someone else.

I am a cherokee Native and I agree with you that jackson does not deserve this honor.

 

It baffles me that when a group tries to do things like getting sports teams to change their "racist" names like Redskins or Indians. Most of the whining is by white "intellectuals" who enjoy telling Natives how to think. All of the Native Americans I know (myself included) don't care about the names and many of them (myself included) find it an honor. There is a high school in Tulsa called Union and their mascot is the Redskins. Vote after vote has always ended in a plus vote for the Redskin name. It's sad that these bleeding heart whites are making the decisions that Native Americans should be making themselves. Sure, there are a few Indians who are against the names, but not very many. Like the rest of us, most Native Americans are too busy working and trying to support themselves and their families and doing normal things to put much thought into the teams' names. My point is this: The Trail of Tears was offensive in every way. The name "Redskin" is, at best, an honor and at worst, just a silly word that offends a few. Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill is like if Russia (or more appropriately Georgia) put Stalin on the ruble in 2014. He simply does not deserve this honor. Pick your battles - which is more offensive? Using a term that doesn't bother most Native Americans or honoring the man behind one of the worst genocides in the last 500 years.

 

Using the term indian is not accurate. That is what columbus called the native people when he landed in America because he apparently thought that he was in india.

The whole redskins thing was used casually as a racist term towards native americans but most do not care because there is no greater insult than taking ones land and telling them how to live their lives.

 

When you get to the down and dirty on the people on each one of the denominations it makes most of their choices a bit murky from an early 21st century perspective:

George Washington owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves, but fathered children by them.

Abraham Lincoln's wife was a certified nutcase.

Most people on the street haven't a clue as to whom James Madison was - he was the first secretary of the treasury and not a president. Other than for getting killed in a duel with Aaron Burr he would not otherwise be on the $10.

Andrew Jackson - willingly defied the US Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall when the court ruled against Jackson's plan to force the Five Civilised Tribes to so-called Indian Territory. "They made their ruling, now let them enforce it"

US Grant - some people would question his being on the $50 given how he "callously" sent waves of US army against the Confederates knowing that casualties would be enormous.

Ben Franklin, the Bill Clinton of the 18th century.

 

From what I learned, Andrew Jackson's views and attitude regarding the native population were quite different from those of the "Founding Fathers" and his predecessor. So this is not exactly a 21c perspective only, I think.

But apart from that, the question of who is depicted on "current" money is basically a current one. Now if you had a series of circulating coins depicting all deceased US presidents, it would be strange to leave one out. Many will be controversial in one way or another, but you "do" them all. However, when it comes to the statesmen on American coins and bills, a selection was made ...

Christian

 

IMHO it is just better to leave politicians off of money in the first place. Even when you put "respected" non-political figures on money they can have their own "problems" so then you are left with allegories. And they might offend some.

I personally don't care for Jackson on the $20, he is one president I can say did have a direct effect on my ancestors. But in the figurative sense I am more concerned with the erosion of value of our fiat based dollar than I am about some ethnic cleansing fool who lived more than 150 years ago.

 

Uh, James Madison was the 4th President of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_united_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

You're thinking of Alexander Hamilton on the $20.

 

I agree with the OP, and have always hated Jackson being honored. He is also the only sitting president to completely ignore a Supreme Court ruling. The tribes won their case to stay on their original homelands in the SE, and Jackson said, "The Supreme Court ruled, and now let THEM enforce their ruling", basically saying "make the courts stop my military". I am part Creek, I know history, so of course Jackson is completely repugnant to me.

 

Right, I was thinking of Alexander Hamilton, but one in keeping with tradition he is on the $10 - not the $20


Madison was on the $5000 - I'd really like to have a Madison

 

Except, Jackson likely never said this... apocryphal.

And the Tail of Tears doesn't rank in the top 100 in genocides of the last 500 years. It also occurred under Martin Van Buren - though I don't think one would doubt it being enforced under Jackson much differently. Considering that many folks just wanted to exterminate the native tribes, relocation was not the bleeding edge of opinion of the day. It was a Congressionally ratified policy of the US Government that he'd campaigned on, ergo - sanctioned by the voters. Regardless, relocation was going to happen peacefully or at arms, it was simply a matter of time and the natural result of a civilizational clash. Jackson did not create the situation nor materially make it worse than it was always destined to be...

Old Hickory once beat off a gunman with his CANE. He was a populist war hero who served in the American Revolution at THIRTEEN and that war I believe cost him his entire family.

He also is the only President to pay off the US federal debt. That ALONE should get him on the twenty...

 

In Oklahoma, the word "Indian" is the preferred term. For example, the hospital in Claremore is called the "Indian Hospital", not the "Native American Hospital". Most Indians/NA prefer to be called "Indians".

 

+1

 

There is not one politician on our money lately that doesn't have some baggage. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Jackson are the worst offenders.

 

He committed genocide. That's enough ALONE to keep him off the $20.

 

Yeah, but GENOCIDE? FDR was a bit of a fascist (everyone was back in those days) and JFK was a womanizer. I say genocide ranks wwwwwwaaaaaayyyyyy above cheating on your wife as far as dastardly deeds go.

 

He did, but my ornery ancestors were too clever for him. They took a "wrong turn" on the Trail of Tears and somehow ended up in the Republic of Texas, where their old friend Sam Houston gave them refuge and a land grant in the Red River Valley.

 

FDR was more pink than black. And he was also a womanizer, well one other woman and not the volumes that JFK did. Sometime read up on Lucy Mercer.

 

In other words, no reason to equate him with somebody like Jackson ...

Christian

 

Sorry, but I disagree. Maybe he didn't say it, but its known his administration did not enforce the lawful US Supreme Court ruling. Maybe killing Indians was a popular idea in the day, but that does not make it right. Sorry if I am defensive about it, but my great great great grandmother was a child on the trail of tears, and lost three siblings along the way. Saying "it was not one of the top 100 genocides" doesn't really help when my family was a victim of the genocide. Would it help you if your family was murdered for someone to say, "yeah, no big deal since a lot more people have been murdered in the last few years, so its no biggie". Frankly, stating "it was not one of the top 100 genocides in the last 500 years" is extremely offensive to me.