Jackson (D), if they were gonna shaft someone I’m glad it was him. Kind of a cool guy, but I wouldn’t have voted for him. The democrats were NEVER the good guys but I think he’d be disgusted with the current state of his party.
Can you say with a straight face that Harriet Tubman was a more important historical figure and contributed more to the development of our nation than Andrew Jackson, whatever you think of his specific policies? There may be Presidents and other historical figures who are more worthy of being on the $20 than Jackson (I'd have no complaints if Jackson was replaced with James Madison or John Adams), but you know perfectly well that Harriet Tubman got to the front of the line because she's female and black. Helping free a few dozen slaves (mostly family and friends) is all well and good, but it's nowhere near the historical importance of about 100 other American historical figures that most people can list right off the top of their head. The problem isn't so much that Jackson is being removed, it's that he's being replaced by someone of much lesser significance for the sake of political correctness. It's sad to see so many people here taking the same side of this issue as Jack Lew and Obama.
As for the Democratic Party in the time of Jackson, there are some people on this thread who seem to think that Jackson deserves to be dishonored because he's a Democrat (I guess this means that Jefferson needs to be replaced by some token minority too, since his Democratic-Republican Party was the Democratic Party). Only the historically ignorant think that there is anything in common ideologically between 19th Century Democrats and the Democratic Party of today. What does Grover Cleveland have in common with Barack Obama? The Democratic Party of the 19th Century was the party of decentralism, states' rights, and free trade/free markets, more so than the Federalists/Whigs/Republicans. The Bourbon Democrats in particular were basically the libertarians of their day. On the trade issue, I'm actually closer to the 19th Century Republicans than I am to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that I'm stupid enough to see Jefferson, Jackson or Cleveland as some kind of precursor to Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both parties have gone through dozens of ideological realignments and re-alliances over the past 150 years, and that retrojecting today's Democrat vs. Republican lines into the debates of 150 years ago is pointless.
No, you're right on that point. No woman has come close to contributing as much as any man currently on money. No woman was a founding father, or has ever been a President or a war hero General. Good point.
As for the democrats, yes their populist agrarian nonsense of the early to mid 19th century was the ideological antecedent of modern socialism. That doesn't mean they were pond scum who never did anything good but speaking for myself, I still wouldn't have voted for em. I think Jackson would hang every democrat politician today and a whole lot of Republicans too. His finest moment to me was he threatened to kick the *ss of anyone trying to secede from the union.
Cleveland was easily the best democrat President (not counting Jeffersonian Republicans). Civil rights is probably the only major issue where I'd have had a major problem with the Bourbon democrats. That post-civil war period was an interesting time. Sometime between Polk and Cleveland the dems went from "Manifest Destiny" (which appeals to me, though I wish we could give Cali back at this point) to anti-imperialists (I probably would have agreed with Harrison on annexing Hawaii, though likewise I wish now we could un-annex it).
Anyway this changing the money wasn't my idea, I would not be inclined to approve it. However since they're doing it replacing Jackson with Tubman is far from the worst outcome in my opinion, that's all I'm saying.
If they had replaced Hamilton with Eleanor, I'd be livid. I'm not livid over this but I certainly respect the position of those that are.