Current Events > Real talk who lobbied to put Andrew Jackson on the $20?

(+) Yeah! (+)

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson I get. I mean you would have to ignore their human rights abuses towards slaves.

But Andrew Jackson? Really? The dude literally committed genocide, set the abolition movement back decades, and died in office. Dude was arguably one of the most evil scumbags to ever have power over an entire country.

So why the fuck did he get on the $20 over, say, Teddy Roosevelt or John fucking Adams.
---

Should have been Coolidge

---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson I get. I mean you would have to ignore their human rights abuses towards slaves.

But Andrew Jackson? Really? The dude literally committed genocide, set the abolition movement back decades, and died in office. Dude was arguably one of the most evil scumbags to ever have power over an entire country.

So why the fuck did he get on the $20 over, say, Teddy Roosevelt or John fucking Adams.

Spite. They knew hed hate it, so they put him on the money

---

Plans to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill were in place back in 2016. They were planned to enter circulation after this year, but of course Trump ruined that just like everything else he touches.

---

probably some group of people that were fans of him or friends of the Jackson family or something. who knows. sometimes there are movements for no reason to prop up the legacy of some politician or another. like when some people worked to get a mountain in Alaska named after William McKinley. even though he never set foot in Alaska his entire life. and had nothing to with Alaska in any way whatsoever. also the mountain already had a name, Denali.

a good chunk of america doesn't see anything wrong with what he did. like people who say native americans didn't deserve to have land because "they were killing each other before we got here" and "they had no concept of land ownership"

---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson I get. I mean you would have to ignore their human rights abuses towards slaves.

But Andrew Jackson? Really? The dude literally committed genocide, set the abolition movement back decades, and died in office. Dude was arguably one of the most evil scumbags to ever have power over an entire country.

So why the fuck did he get on the $20 over, say, Teddy Roosevelt or John fucking Adams.

You have to remember that as a society we've only really recently decided to believe those things he did were wrong.

---

Doom_Art posted...

Plans to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill were in place back in 2016. They were planned to enter circulation after this year, but of course Trump ruined that just like everything else he touches.

They should just launch protests, since this is 2020 a few days of protests should be all it takes to replace Jackson with, say, Maya Angelou.

I kind of see it as a "fuck you" to his legacy. He hated paper money.

Not that that justifies him being on the bill. We shouldn't be using our money to play jokes.
---

GodIsImaginary posted...

They should just launch protests, since this is 2020 a few days of protests should be all it takes to replace Jackson with, say, Maya Angelou.

The plan was for Harriet Tubman IIRC

---

He's literally the Hero of New Orleans. Also how did he commit genocide?

---

ZombiePelican posted...

Also how did he commit genocide?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

---

Doom_Art posted...

Plans to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill were in place back in 2016. They were planned to enter circulation after this year, but of course Trump ruined that just like everything else he touches.

god trump is petty

prob. wants himself on the bill

ZombiePelican posted...

He's literally the Hero of New Orleans. Also how did he commit genocide?

Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears. Also he won the battle of New Orleans after the war was already over so it didn't change shit about the outcome of that war.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears. Also he won the battle of New Orleans after the war was already over so it didn't change shit about the outcome of that war.

lol rekt

ZombiePelican posted...

He's literally the Hero of New Orleans.

To some, Hitler was also a hero.

---

He's the only president to pay off the national debt, so it makes sense for him to be represented on money. It still doesn't excuse the other shit he did though.

---

Who gives a shit?

---

Imagine being upset over paper. Use a fucking debit card then

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Who gives a shit?

Native Americans and people who aren't racist and supportive of genocide

Andrew Jackson is the only president in US History to have successfully invaded Florida.

---

I think the bigger more infuriating thing was that they were actually planning on removing Hamilton from the $5 bill before even considering removing that horrible horrible andrew jackson. That to me is just beyond despicable.

How do those people that were gonna do that back in 2015 live with themselves?
---

saspa posted...

I think the bigger more infuriating thing was that they were actually planning on removing Hamilton from the $5 bill before even considering removing that horrible horrible andrew jackson. That to me is just beyond despicable.

How do those people that were gonna do that back in 2015 live with themselves?

$10

Hamilton was a dick too
---

More importantly, he destroyed the Federal Reserve. Kind of the ultimate irony to have him on the most important Federal Reserve note.

---

He was incredibly popular until recent times because if his role in expanding the popular vote beyond the elites and he was a war hero (battle of new Orleans against the british).

Most people just didnt care about the indian removal act.

Second greatest president easily. Left the country with zero debt and was a MLG YOLO swag meister duelist.

---

Yeah he's a dick. Harriet Tubman was a hero that continuously risked her life for people.

---

The Federal Reserve in order to get the final laugh against the President whose crowning achievement was defeating the 2nd Bank of America (the centralized bank during his presidency).
---

I swear people will argue about the most asinine shit on here

---

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Jackson used to be viewed as one of the great presidents. He expanded democracy such that Jacksonian Democracy became a phrase. And people were all onboard with removing Indians and genocide until they werent.


---

KILBOTz posted...

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Jackson used to be viewed as one of the great presidents. He expanded democracy such that Jacksonian Democracy became a phrase. And people were all onboard with removing Indians and genocide until they werent.

eugenics used to be real popular in this country, now we only practice it on our pets.

---

Squall28 posted...

Yeah he's a dick. Harriet Tubman was a hero that continuously risked her life for people.

I really think a President should be on money though. Teddy is cool and on Mt Rushmore so it should be him.
---

Duncanwii posted...

I really think a President should be on money though. Teddy is cool and on Mt Rushmore so it should be him.

There's no reason really why he shouldn't but I guess people don't realize how money circulation works and how long it would take to filter out $10 bills. If you make any Andrew bills not worth anything there will easily be more riots

---

Calvin Coolidge, the President of the United States at the time, chose Andrew Jackson to be the figure who adorned the Twenty-Dollar Bill. Prior to the New Left historiography of the 1960s, Jackson was not demonized and was seen as a figure who symbolized national unity and popular government. Coolidge especially appreciated Jackson for putting down the early attempts at nullification and secession in the 1830s and for asserting that these practices violated a strict reading of the Constitution.

Though Coolidge was a Republican loyalist, there was bipartisan, national support for Jackson in the 1920s. Many people who fought in the Civil War, on both the Union and Confederate side, were still alive. Given the recent memory of the Civil War, the leadership class sought a way to build a postbellum Union characterized by reconciliation, harmony, and national unity. Jackson was a great symbol of this, since many rightfully pointed to his love of the Union and his hatred of both Northern and Southern sectionalists in the 1830s. Honoring Jackson was seen as a way to bridge the traditional divide between Northerners and Southerners and to unite the country around shared principles of liberty under the federal Constitution.

But, by all means, continue to just assume that this was an entirely unreasonable decision with no rhyme or reason to it besides "racism." New Left "historiography" is not really history at all, particularly as it relates to Jackson, who adopted a Native American as his son and treated the slaves of his household with as much respect as anyone could be treated who was confined to that sordid station. He was paternalistic as it relates to the races, but was not any more racist than Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington.

The best reason to support removing Jackson from the $20 is simply that he despised inflationary, fiat currency that was not backed by gold. He would want nothing to do with the Federal Reserve, given his successful war against the Second National Bank and its inflationary policies.

---

SolaFide posted...

active posts: 10

really though what most Americans are taught as "history" has been extremely white-washed with a focus on European settlers and greatly downplays the role of non-whites in the founding of the US

you probably still think Columbus was the first person to reach the Americas and was a pretty swell guy >_>

---

SolaFide posted...

Calvin Coolidge, the President of the United States at the time, chose Andrew Jackson to be the figure who adorned the Twenty-Dollar Bill. Prior to the New Left historiography of the 1960s, Jackson was not demonized and was seen as a figure who symbolized national unity and popular government. Coolidge especially appreciated Jackson for putting down the early attempts at nullification and secession in the 1830s and for asserting that these practices violated a strict reading of the Constitution.

Though Coolidge was a Republican loyalist, there was bipartisan, national support for Jackson in the 1920s. Many people who fought in the Civil War, on both the Union and Confederate side, were still alive. Given the recent memory of the Civil War, the leadership class sought a way to build a postbellum Union characterized by reconciliation, harmony, and national unity. Jackson was a great symbol of this, since many rightfully pointed to his love of the Union and his hatred of both Northern and Southern sectionalists in the 1830s. Honoring Jackson was seen as a way to bridge the traditional divide between Northerners and Southerners and to unite the country around shared principles of liberty under the federal Constitution.

But, by all means, continue to just assume that this was an entirely unreasonable decision with no rhyme or reason to it besides "racism." New Left "historiography" is not really history at all, particularly as it relates to Jackson, who adopted a Native American as his son and treated the slaves of his household with as much respect as anyone could be treated who was confined to that sordid station. He was paternalistic as it relates to the races, but was not any more racist than Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington.

The best reason to support removing Jackson from the $20 is simply that he despised inflationary, fiat currency that was not backed by gold. He would want nothing to do with the Federal Reserve, given his successful war against the Second National Bank and its inflationary policies.

That's a long way to go to defend genocide.

---

HylianFox posted...

you probably still think Columbus was the first person to reach the Americas and was a pretty swell guy >_>

He wasn't the first, but he was undoubtedly the most important.

---

also, did you SERIOUSLY just use the "sure Jackson committed genocide, but he treated his own slaves well enough" argument?

---

HylianFox posted...

also, did you SERIOUSLY just use the "sure Jackson committed genocide, but he treated his own slaves well enough" argument?

He did. There was also a lot of "people didn't hate Jackson till we started talking about the fact that he committed genocide".

---

SolaFide posted...

Calvin Coolidge, the President of the United States at the time, chose Andrew Jackson to be the figure who adorned the Twenty-Dollar Bill. Prior to the New Left historiography of the 1960s, Jackson was not demonized and was seen as a figure who symbolized national unity and popular government. Coolidge especially appreciated Jackson for putting down the early attempts at nullification and secession in the 1830s and for asserting that these practices violated a strict reading of the Constitution.

Though Coolidge was a Republican loyalist, there was bipartisan, national support for Jackson in the 1920s. Many people who fought in the Civil War, on both the Union and Confederate side, were still alive. Given the recent memory of the Civil War, the leadership class sought a way to build a postbellum Union characterized by reconciliation, harmony, and national unity. Jackson was a great symbol of this, since many rightfully pointed to his love of the Union and his hatred of both Northern and Southern sectionalists in the 1830s. Honoring Jackson was seen as a way to bridge the traditional divide between Northerners and Southerners and to unite the country around shared principles of liberty under the federal Constitution.

But, by all means, continue to just assume that this was an entirely unreasonable decision with no rhyme or reason to it besides "racism." New Left "historiography" is not really history at all, particularly as it relates to Jackson, who adopted a Native American as his son and treated the slaves of his household with as much respect as anyone could be treated who was confined to that sordid station. He was paternalistic as it relates to the races, but was not any more racist than Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington.

The best reason to support removing Jackson from the $20 is simply that he despised inflationary, fiat currency that was not backed by gold. He would want nothing to do with the Federal Reserve, given his successful war against the Second National Bank and its inflationary policies.

killing native americans isn't very christian of you, mister luther

---

RoadsterUFO posted...

He was the first Democrat President and the only President to pay off the national debt. The fact that he is on the $20 bill in itself is a bit ironic though considering how the man was very critical of central banking.

He paid off the national debt! Gee golly gee he done darn did a great job I'd say yes ir eeee wooo boy! *shoots revolvers in air*
---

HylianFox posted...

active posts: 10

Maybe I have ten active posts because I'm too busy with my Ph.D. work, focusing primarily on the American political tradition, to spend all of my time wasting away on this God-forsaken message board, which is filled with iconoclasts who have no appreciation for the very real nuances and tragedies of American history.

HylianFox posted...

really though what most Americans are taught as "history" has been extremely white-washed with a focus on European settlers and greatly downplays the role of non-whites in the founding of the US

you probably still think Columbus was the first person to reach the Americas and was a pretty swell guy >_>

This is laughable. On the one hand, political Leftists want us to believe that the American political tradition has been one long history of oppression and injustice, since the white elites allegedly did nothing for racial minorities between 1619 and 1960. On the other hand, these same Leftists want us to believe that non-white minorities played some kind of massive role in the "founding of the US." That's a bold assertion to make, given that there were no non-whites who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the American Constitution, or who even attended the Constitutional Ratification Conventions as freemen in 1787. I can look at this evidence and acknowledge that this shows that minority races have been silenced and tragically mistreated throughout U.S. history. But I can't look at the evidence and say that it shows that minorities were especially involved in the American Founding.

---

HylianFox posted...

also, did you SERIOUSLY just use the "sure Jackson committed genocide, but he treated his own slaves well enough" argument?

I never affirmed that Jackson committed genocide anywhere in my post. In fact, that idea is also more mythical than true. When you actually read Jackson's defenses of his Native American removal policy, it is quite clear that he never intended their death and execution, in the way that a real genocidal maniac like Hitler did for supposed inferiors. Jackson justifies his policy by pointing to the mistreatment of Native Americans under state governments like Georgia, and argues that the Native Americans will be more able to flourish if they can have federal territories to themselves where whites will no longer be able disturb them. His view of the Native Americans is paternalistic, not genocidal. He calls not for their death and destruction, but for their support from a benevolent, white federal government.

The clearest expression of Jackson's views on the Native American Removal Policy are in his Second Annual Message to Congress, where he explains why his policy should be seen as good for every party involved.

"[Native American Removal] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will [deter] the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community... And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

While his views on Native American Removal deserve enormous criticism, it is a misrepresentation to say that he simply supported "genocide." He never calls for their mass execution in any document that I'm aware of, and I've read all of his major addresses and speeches.

ThyCorndog posted...

killing native americans isn't very christian of you, mister luther

You must not be aware that the Trail of Tears actually happened under Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and that it is quite possible that Jackson would have conducted the policy in a more humane way had he been in office. While I think the whole policy was wrong and believe that Jackson still deserves blame for pressing for it (with, by the way, a huge majority of the American populace), I want to understand these people as they understood themselves. We cannot impute to Jackson the responsibility for the deaths that occurred during the Trail of Tears, which took place after he had left office. Van Buren's heinous and irresponsible execution of the Removal policy does not, by itself, mean that Jackson's intentions with the Removal policy were simply "genocidal." Rather, they were paternalistic and racialist in a way that is, while lamentable from a modern perspective, entirely unextraordinary given the context of his own day.

---

i too love to use today's moral standards to judge the leader of a country in the 1800s

---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson I get

They owned slaves; it could offend their descendants

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

They owned slaves; it could offend their descendants

did you even try to attempt to read the rest of the OP
---

Jackson is pretty consistently ranked in the top 10 presidents of all time, and he is the founder of the Democratic Party

---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Jackson is pretty consistently ranked in the top 10 presidents of all time

proof?