Skip to comments.Kick Andrew Jackson Off the $20 Bill!
Posted on 03/05/2014 4:40:55 AM PST by C19fan
My public high school wasnt the best, but we did have an amazing history teacher. Mr. L, as we called him, brought our countrys story to life. So when he taught us about the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jacksons campaigns to force at least 46,000 Cherokees, Choctaws, Muscogee-Creeks, Chickasaws, and Seminoles off their ancestral lands, my classmates and I were stricken. .......................................................
But then it was lunchtime, and we pulled out our wallets in the cafeteria. Andrew Jackson was there, staring out from every $20 bill. We had been carrying around portraits of a mass murderer all along, and had no idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Jackson wouldn’t be among my favorites but leave him on the bill.
Slate is anti American, they are haters of this country. Nothing they say matters except to other haters
My feeling is the guy should stay because he was the first President elected based on universal white manhood suffrage. I can’t think of until that time any leader selected based on that big an electorate.
Anyone believe that the demodummies will push to get odumbo’s photo on our money as our nations first (and hopefully last) black president?
Odumbo has done more to divide blacks and whites in this country than anyone in history. He sure as hell does not deserve to have his name on anything and it should be stricken from our history books. He has been a disaster since day one.
Whatever else he did deserves forgiveness. He closed the 2nd Bank of the US and put Nicholas Biddle out of business. That is enough to make him a great president.
I’m OK with this...as long as it’s Ronald Reagan replacing him. :)
The Democrats still call their annual awards dinner “the Jefferson Jackson banquet.”
I often tease them about having a dinner named for two slaveholders, in which they often present awards to black people for staying on the Democrat party plantation.
Jackson is on the 20 because he was a great president.
Those who have bad things to say about him only speak of the politically correct indian situation.
Ignoring that, there’s nothing wrong w/him. He was a no-nonsense man of the people and probably would’ve been a TEA party candidate were he alive today.
He got on the bill, I think, because he did a lot to expand the territory.
If you have a problem w/the U.S. existing because the indians were “here first”, I can see why you wouldn’t like him.
I, however, was never the sap for such propaganda.
He also killed the bank, which imo was one of the greatest acts in American history. The trail of tears WAS genocide.
The only people really upset about this kind of stuff are the idiots on both the left and right who look for “good” people vs demons in history.
The lesson I have learned from history is that all men are weak, corrupt, dissimulating, and unworthy to be trusted with power.
The liberals want to kill the hagiography we have erected around early american leaders. I do, too. Not because I hate “America” but because I hate the lie that we are a “good” nation due to our leaders and laws.
We are a FORTUNATE nation due to the fact that in the past we were largely left alone to pursue our own wants and centralized government was set up to be weak, ineffectual and powerless.
This is no longer the case. Many so called “patriots” want to see us continue to have a strong central government (war and foreign intervention DEMANDS a strong central government) to protect us from enemies abroad..... and bad choices we may make for ourselves. They are fascists and control freaks no less than the left. They just have bibles in their hands instead of Marx.
Jackson was a case study in why even good men (he did kill the central bank) are not to be trusted with power. If I were in that class, I would argue that Jackson’s portrait on the 20 is reason numero uno that the left’s prescription for central power is dangerous and wrong.
I long for the day when the so called “conservatives” will realize that the warfare state IS the welfare state and you can’t buy half the cow and take it home. Then we can join the SLATE author here, and use his own illustrations to defeat his arguments. Till then, conservatives will remain mirror images of the left..... both wanting a strong centralized state, but just wanting it to do different things.
Wish we had AJ around today.
He’d kick Obama’s ass all day long up and down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Then for good measure he’d put his boot up Boehner’s and McConnell’s backsides for being such losers.
Wow!!!! I am no Indian apologist, but I”d read up a little about the forced Trail of Tears march of the Cherokees before making comments like that.
I look at him and remember that it’s been that long since we had no debt.
I SO want to see a pubbie just get up and slug a dem on CSPAN ... just once.
M*****F*** you, my esteemed colleague on the right .. you traitorous bastard !
Evne though close in history, the early to mid 19th century was quite a different world than today. You need to keep that in context.
Also keep in mind that indians weren’t particularly nice to people either. Before “whitey” showed up, indians abused each other just as much, if not more.
Jackson was not the first to execute such a forced transplant.
The Acadian French in Louisiana were forced out of Canada by the brits in the French and Indian war.
Different time. Definitely more brutal than today.
Andrew Jackson was a product of the time, not vice-versa.
I can’t quite agree with your ‘hopefully last’ sentiment. I can think of quite a few conservatives who are black that I’d love to see in the Oval Office. One black leftist, though, is more than enough for the rest of time.
That isn’t the only reason. President Andrew Jackson released General Santa Anna back to Mexico the very next year after the Alamo. Eleven years after the Alamo, Americans once again had to fight Santa Anna at the battle of Chapultepec. In his later years Santa Anna lived on Staten island in New York. Does this traitorous act by a president sound familiar. This man had hundreds of prisoners executed and is given a free pass to wage war on Americans once again. Sounds like current events to me, John Boehner and his master comes to mind. Millions of us without jobs and amnesty is the priority.
Agreed. But he sure was no saint. I have no problem leaving him on the $20.
Being half-Cherokee, he has always been a villain in my eyes, but I agree, he was a significant figure in American history and should stay on the bill.
Hey Slate, who cares, we in Dixie have to live with Grant on the $50.
Hell, I nominate Mumia.
Slate focusing on the big issues of the day.
If anyone needs to be removed from the money, it’s Grant. What did he do? Yes, he was a Civil War general, but he’s at or near the top of most expert’s Worst U.S. President lists.
Still, it’s such a minor thing.
Marxist “multi-culturalism” blowing in the wind.
I wonder whether we would have had a civil war if Jackson (or someone just like him) had been president instead of Lincoln during those years.
There was a secession movement during Jackson’s presidency and he basically told the hotheads in South Carolina to shut up and sit down - and they did.
I don’t know a lot about Santa Anna, but I do know that in those days, when a battle was over either by outright victory or surrender, it wasn’t the habit of the victor to summarily execute officers.
Officers surviving a defeated battle always had the chance to come back another day.
Agree about his significance. I live in Jackson county Michigan in a town named after Michigan’s first senator next to a town named after a French dictator (Napoleon).
He was a true democrat. His political payoffs and gamesmanship showed where the party was headed. He gave the much more valuable Toledo strip to Ohio if they could deliver the vote for the Democrats in the next election. Michigan got that “worthless” upper peninsula with.
I agree he was no saint. I don’t relish in any brutality or injustice. My point is basically is, in the period of history, his actions did not appear so severe as they do from the vantage of OUR point in history.
There can be no doubt that this ‘nation’ is no nation at all. We have huge irreconcilable differences that are becoming more evident everyday.
Last, Really! Allen West, Tim Scott, E.W. Jackson, (Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia). Any of these men would do not only a better job than Obozo, but an outstanding job. And you can bet West would not allow the cuts to the military that Hagel is implementing.
lwet’s get real... ceasar chavez will replace him evenmtually
That was Sam Houston, not Andrew Jackson. At the time, Texas was still a Republic and not part of the United States.
The libtards know this and in their minds that is reason enough.
He was also the victorious general at the Battle of New Orleans, one of the very few American victories over Britain during that war and key to holding the entire Mississippi valley without dispute (OK, it happened several weeks after a peace treaty had been signed ... details, details). As an icon of the Democratic Party, and being of Cherokee ancestry myself, I have no great love or admiration for Jackson. In many ways he was a genuine bas***d and tyrant. But the fact is he was an important and pivotal figure in our history, the first common-man to ever gain the presidency.
I recall reading that someone took a shot at him with a pistol when he was President. He chased the man down and tried to beat him with a cane. I don't recall if he actually caught the man or not.
While Jackson was indeed repugnant because of his ethnic cleansing, far worse was his refusal to recharter the Second Bank of the United States, and his “specie circular”, that plunged America into its worst depression until the Great Depression.
Throughout his term, he could have mitigated much of this disaster, but instead he waited until just before leaving office to pull the rug out from under the US economy.
Importantly, this just destroyed his successor, a man he hated, his own vice president Martin Van Buren, also a Democrat, because he was pro-business and had wealthy friends, whom Jackson bitterly hated and wanted to destroy.
The Andrew Jackson depression lasted seven years.
And true to form, in his efforts to hurt and harm the wealthy, most of the people who were ruined were the middle class and poor.
It has been said that Mark Twain’s character Pap Finn, father of Huckleberry Finn, was pretty much a typical Jacksonian Democrat: he had never had $50 in his pocket, and hated anyone who ever had, because he was convinced that he had to have made that $50 by ‘keeping him (Finn) down’, so he wanted the government to take that $50 away.
We should return to the ‘old’ standard...Lady Liberty and the like. Such beauty and art in those days.
Of course, then it would make it difficult to know the difference between REAL $$ and fiat currency
He actually had two attempted assassinations, which is what would also happen today if someone had the balls to take on the rat’s nest of crooks that compose the triumvirate of the federal reserve, the US Treasury, and the Wall Street elite.
He had a $20 bill for lunch? What neighborhood was he raised in?
Jackson was right. The federal government has no business operating a bank using public moneys to make private loans. That should be left to the private sector.
Politicians love the idea because they can use public resources to reward their contributors and supporters through the bank and fund their little pet projects, like Solyndra.
Which is not to say that the federal government should not regulate the banking sector and ensure a stable currency.
But the federal government should not operate a private bank, which as Jackson saw, creates a piggy bank or slush fund for the politically-connected.
Wow, you personally had $20 bills in HS? I only ever saw GW back in the 60s.
No, seriously, how about Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson? He was a great Confederate general, and he taught slaves to read.
Or, how about George Washington Carver? He knew how to make things grow. We all want our money to grow.
True, with "the people" defined as white Americans. The objections to him arise now because our definition has expanded.
The objectors are IMO somewhat myopic, as they can't recognize that the definition of who constituted "the people" had to expand gradually.
In the days of Magna Carta it was essentially limited to the nobility. By the time USA was founded, in most states it meant reasonably well-off white men.
We had to go through a state of "all white men" to get to "all adults."
It was acting Texas president David G. Burnet released Santa Anna back to Mexico after the signing of the treaty (independence of Texas) that Mexico didn’t recognize. Santa Anna was no longer president and went into exile in the United States. Andrew Jackson released him back to Mexico in 1837, his last year as president. Regardless, 189 Texans died at the Alamo and Santa Anna had 342 Texan prisoners executed later the same month.
The Supreme Court sided with the Indians. Jackson acted illegally in expelling them. He broke his oath to defend the Constitution.
I agree and disagree.
I would like to see all of the so called hero,s off of the bills as i do not like slavers any better than i do killers, but since this is a Government run by the people who is really to blame?
Jackson did not put himself in the office as president no more than bozo did, he was put there by the nutty people who are supposed to be governing this nation.
As for the rape, suicide, diabetes, schooling, etc.
Much of that is caused by the people of those tribes themselves, don,t worry about it.
Dems likely choices for the $20 bill:
Al or Jesse
It will be Martin Luther King, if he’s replaced. Guaranteed.