Posted on 12/05/2016 10:49:38 PM PST by jcon40
Supporters of the decision by the Obama White House to put the black abolitionist Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 bill are worried that it could be reversed.
“We certainly are worried, when [Donald] Trump won the election, that he might try to make good on his suggestion that Harriet Tubman be put on the $2 bill instead of the $20 bill,” said Susan Ades Stone, executive director of the nonprofit organization Women on 20s. “It would be a slap in the face of women to reverse the decision in our opinion.”
Lisa Maatz, vice president for government relations at the American Association of University Women, also expressed concern. She said that Trump should consider he has a “credibility gap” with women before deciding to reverse the decision.
During the presidential campaign, Trump said he thought it was “very rough” to take Andrew Jackson off the $20 note.
“I think it’s pure political correctness,” Trump said during an April appearance on NBC’s “Today” show, suggesting that Tubman, who he allowed “is fantastic,” be placed on another denomination. “Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill,” Trump suggested. (Thomas Jefferson appears on the $2 bill, which remains in circulation and production.)
(Excerpt) Read more at heatst.com ...
He should. It is an idiotic idea. Harriet Tubman never did anything significant in the National sense.
But of what national significance is this? Franklin did much to create the United States, as did Jefferson and Washington.
In the larger scheme of things, Harriet Tubman was a nothing. Teddy Roosevelt was far more significant to the interests of the United States.
Not to the nation they created. That they are "criminals" to a foreign nation is of no consequence to the people of this country. To this nation they are heroes.
Besides, Jackson would be the first person to rage against his face on a d**n federal note
It is my understanding that prior to the last half of the 19th century, people were never put on the currency. The practice of putting people on the currency is a throwback to monarchy where the image represented the current ruler of the nation when the currency was produced.
The US intended to distance itself from this concept, and the currency for the first half of our existence largely consisted of such things as a "Liberty Cap", Eagles, Indian Heads, Buffaloes, Shields, a generic "Liberty" female, and other sorts of non "real person" symbology.
Putting real people on the coinage/notes is a bad idea in and of itself.
Just leave Andrew on the front and put Tubman on the back. Sheesh.
Put her on the dollar coin.
Yesss...and maybe Andrea Mitchell's husbands face on the $2500 dollar bill...just don't confuse him with Mr. Magoo!!!
Harriet Tubman on the $20 is insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.