Treasury to put Tubman on $20: Official

[Ivanstone]

I think he means they should have replaced a bill with a non-president on it with a non-president, like the 10 or the 100.
Also, this just reeks of "Historical figure did bad thing that was kinda sorta acceptable/encouraged at the time, but isn't now so we must villainize them."

Jackson was by any measure an awful human being. He shoulda been ditched decades ago. There've been much better presidents nevermind Americans in general.

PS Boot Grant off the fifty. When you're sitting in the bottom quartile of US presidents, you need to take a seat.

PPS Frank Zappa is still the greatest American ever. He should be on all the money.

[Crissi]

I mena I'm a goody two shoes when it comes to not breaking things ehn possible, but if we're going to start demonizing law breakers whose actions were mroe benefitial than harmful, we need to do that for ALL of them. Which WILL include people from the American Revolution and the Continental Congress who people tend to revere.

[zorothusian]

Because they're replacing a genocidal asshole who tried to kill central banking with a woman who saved countless slaves?

someone has issues

[Crissi]

Jackson was by any measure an awful human being. He shoulda been ditched decades ago. There've been much better presidents nevermind Americans in general.

PS Boot Grant off the fifty. When you're sitting in the bottom quartile of US presidents, you need to take a seat.

PPS Frank Zappa is still the greatest American ever. He should be on all the money.

Grant was a mediocre President as he didnt have the strength of will to get ahold of his corrupt administration (he was clean himself though), but he was icnredibly important to winning the Civil War so for that, I say stay.

[Vurdah]

Do they spend the same as $20 bills we have now? Then the fucks I give are at or below zero.

They could put Big Bird on a bill and would still give a total of zero fucks.

[Gib Lover]

Jackson was by any measure an awful human being. He shoulda been ditched decades ago. There've been much better presidents nevermind Americans in general.

Not really. He did plenty of good things, like prevent the Civil War from happening decades before it actually did, ensuring the North was strong enough to win it when it eventually did break out, strengthen the role of President (could be taken as good or bad), expanded America westward (at the expense of others, but hey), founded the modern Democratic party.
It's not like he PLANNED on killing the natives, he just wanted to move them, and through a process that I can only callously call "shenanigans" a bunch ended up dying. He was immensely popular, did good things and bad things. It's morally wrong for us in the 21st century to look back on the deeds deemed appropriate at the time and judge them by today's standards.

t. decedent of natives that walked the Trail of Tears

[Ivanstone]

Grant was a mediocre President as he didnt have the strength of will to get ahold of his corrupt administration (he was clean himself though), but he was icnredibly important to winning the Civil War so for that, I say stay.

The Civil War was the North's to lose. They had a numerical and economic advantage.

Andrew Jackson was a highly capable General as well and likely much better than Grant. Does he belong on the 20 for his skills?

- - - Updated - - -

It's morally wrong for us in the 21st century to look back on the deeds deemed appropriate at the time and judge them by today's standards.

Its morally wrong to judge American ancestors for things like Slavery?

[Polyxo]

With that face looking at me I would not be carrying many $20 bills.

Do you really like having crazy haired James Woods on your money?

[Crissi]

The Civil War was the North's to lose. They had a numerical and economic advantage.

Andrew Jackson was a highly capable General as well and likely much better than Grant. Does he belong on the 20 for his skills?

He beat the British in NO after the war was over. whoop de doo.

Grant providing many of the wins that helped keep the morale in the North alive and thus, allowed the war to continue was more important IMO. Also, Considering how many shitty generals after the coward McClellen that Lincoln went through before finally finding success in Grant, I think brushing him off is really silly. Grant also doesnt have that Trail of Tears bull hanging over his head

For the record I dont actually have a rabid hate of Jackson. I appreciate the positive actions he did do. However, on a priority level, I would rather replace someone who basically had many native Americans die by moving them than someone whose worse offense was possibly being drunk all the time.

[Gib Lover]

Its morally wrong to judge American ancestors for things like Slavery?

Honestly, kinda. If you went back in time and pointed a finger at a plantation owner and said, "YOU OWN SLAVES!" He would shrug and say, "Yeah, so does everyone else." Slavery was bad. Today we view slavery as a travesty(well not everywhere, some places still unfortunately practice it). People used to do shitty things. 100 years from now, we are going to be looked back on for doing relatively shitty things compared to how things are done 100 years in the future. This is a really touchy issue though, so I don't fault you for seeing it differently than I do. Just keep it civil, I'm not attacking you in any way.

[Dextroden]

Now discovering that it will be Harriet Tubman, my reaction remains "And?".

Also, Jackson did some fucked up shit. But he also was for keeping the debt manageable. He gets respect for that.

- - - Updated - - -

The Civil War was the North's to lose. They had a numerical and economic advantage.

Andrew Jackson was a highly capable General as well and likely much better than Grant. Does he belong on the 20 for his skills?

- - - Updated - - -



Its morally wrong to judge American ancestors for things like Slavery?

So, Germany should forever be referred to as Nazi Germany then?

[Mawnix]

Now discovering that it will be Harriet Tubman, my reaction remains "And?".

Also, Jackson did some fucked up shit. But he also was for keeping the debt manageable. He gets respect for that.

He also destroyed the nation's banks because they fucked him over when he was a kid and, in turn, throttled a massive panic pertaining to the economy.

He wasn't that great a guy.

[RampageBW1]

Honestly, kinda. If you went back in time and pointed a finger at a plantation owner and said, "YOU OWN SLAVES!" He would shrug and say, "Yeah, so does everyone else." Slavery was bad. Today we view slavery as a travesty(well not everywhere, some places still unfortunately practice it). People used to do shitty things. 100 years from now, we are going to be looked back on for doing relatively shitty things compared to how things are done 100 years in the future. This is a really touchy issue though, so I don't fault you for seeing it differently than I do. Just keep it civil, I'm not attacking you in any way.

Oh lordy, this makes me laugh.

Lets see if I can invoke Godwin's law here...

HMM, so by your logic it'd wrong to judge Nazi's for the holocaust. Somewhere, somehow Hitler is feeling his vindication...

[Luxxor]

As a user of plastic everywhere in the USA, doesn't affect me one bit. I do think it's rather odd that the demonize 'slave owner' Andrew Jackson as some quasi excuse...what about George Washington? Why does George Washington the slave owner get to stay on the quarter and 1 dollar bill?

Andrew Jackson was a major asshole for other reasons too, primarily being a genocidal thug that got "popular" for murdering Indians.

[Gib Lover]

Oh lordy, this makes me laugh.

Lets see if I can invoke Godwin's law here...

HMM, so by your logic it'd wrong to judge Nazi's for the holocaust. Somewhere, somehow Hitler is feeling his vindication...

No, that is not the same because the holocaust was viewed as reprehensible while it was happening. There is actually a huge difference.

[ro9ue]

Who the fuck still carries paper money?

[RampageBW1]

No, that is not the same because the holocaust was viewed as reprehensible while it was happening. There is actually a huge difference.

And certain people didn't view Slavery as reprehensible while it was happening? Wasn't that the whole point behind freeing the slaves?

[Damajin]

Andrew Jackson was a major asshole for other reasons too, primarily being a genocidal thug that got "popular" for murdering Indians.

He wasn't hugely popular due to that, he had stronger support due to his wanting to go after, and subsequently doing so the 2nd Bank of the U.S.

To date he's the only President to pay off the debt, and the only one to outright smash the central bank and its' fractional reserve scheme.

"Jackson and No Bank" forever.

[Snakehead]

When I first saw her picture on the bill I thought it was the same person on the aunt jemima pancake box.

[The Casualty]

When I first saw her picture on the bill I thought it was the same person on the aunt jemima pancake box.

Isn't that what she's famous for?