I’m Choctaw, so I have nothing but disdain for Jackson because of how he “repaid” Choctaw loyalty and assistance to him during his times of need. HOWEVER!!! he is a hugely important President and was the first “man of the people” not from the elite East or Virginia.
Taking Jackson off the $20 because today it is PC and makes some people feel good, warm and fuzzy is totally and completely ridiculous. Tubman’s current legends far exceed her actual deeds. Not taking anything away from what she actually did, but she would be shocked to see how she is portrayed today. Some of the stories about her compare to George Washington and ‘the cherry tree’ or ‘throwing a dollar across the Delaware’ (or was it the Potomac?).
I swear, the world is being turned upside down by people with “good? intentions.”
That’s just my opinion.
Oldplayer
Only since 1928...
Yes, just mere days ago...
Good grief where do they find these hack writers?
I object to the change, because it’s not the only one.
Pretty soon we’ll have money that insults us every time we use it.
And of course that’s the plan anyway.
They want to do away with domestic cash. They’re hoping we’ll sign on board as soon as our case insults us every time we use it.
Grant is on the fifty dollar bill and rightly so. After all, who really ended slavery, Ulysses S. Grant or Harriet Tubman?
What a farce!
Consider this:
Excerpt from the 1801 Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson"Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
Now, the question is: do current Party leaders subscribe to principles and ideas which will lead us to "retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety"?
That seems to rule out any connection for current Democrats with Jefferson, which, might lead to a consideration of a possible ideological connection with Jackson. Consider this:
By the Founders' formula, "the People's" written Constitution was the anchor of our liberties, binding government to the "People's" limitations on its power.
Current Democrat Party philosophy, in effect, undoes all the monumental work accomplished by the Founders on behalf of liberty and leaves the law afloat and without anchor, relying, as of old, on mere men and women.
From Page xv of "Our Ageless Constitution," here are excerpted words from President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation of December 10, 1832:
"We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution . . .? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault. . . . No, we did not err! . . . The sages . . . have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent* Constitutional compact. . . . The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity. . . ."
*Underlining added for emphasis
And, it was Thomas Jefferson who used another metaphor with reference to the Constitution when he indicated that "the People" must "bind them (government) by the chains of the Constitution." In another instance, he declared: "It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers. . . ."
Perhaps a Wilson-FDR Dinner might be more appropriate now! And, while they're at it, relegating Jackson to the back of the bill may be the first step in that direction. Perhaps they fear that citizens may now read Jackson's philosophy on the Constitution and realize the degree to which they have perverted its principles and ideas in recent years.
What a ridiculous statement.
As a major election year is at hand, the optics of this news push could be construed as a major breakout of pandering to the constituencies of the Democrat party.
President Trump should send his Treasury secretary to cancel all this politically correct nonsense.
I don’t care. I don’t care if he buggered baby baboons.
I resent the way that they are going about this. It is TOTALLY unnecessary and constitutes a needless extravagance.
At the very least I will dedicate myself to defacing every one of these bills I come across before passing it along.
On her radio show yesterday, blogger-mom Dana Loesch said she “doesn’t have a problem with it because Jackson was a nut.”
This is the one problem our founders never saw coming, namely, stupid people who have the aptitude to be, at most, nail-fetchers for blacksmiths, who are now able to pontificate on politics and political philosophy and have their uneducated opinions propagated through modern technology.
Sigh. A waste of resources because they have nothing productive to do.
Dan doesn't read much.
Yet another voice of politically correct “conservatism” speaks, carrying water for the left while bending over backwards to show how the GOP establishment is as much on board with the multiculturalism program as any Democrat.
And if the debates over the $10 and the $20 lead more Americans to learn the flesh-and-blood stories of Hamilton, Jackson, and Tubman, that can’t be a bad thing.
***
Problem is that such debates will lead not to the true stories of these individuals but the stories as they are crafted by the left.