Tunman will never be on the $20. All will be quickly forgotten after Obama leaves office.
Which simply means the next administration can cancel all of this stupidity.
If Trump is the next Andrew Jackson he’ll be in the annals of exemplary history soon enough. Maybe Trump will go on the $1000 bill.
I find it hard to get overly excited against the idea of Tubman on our money. I think we should use that as an opportunity to let the Democrats know that they’ve been pushing a golden shackle slavery on the black people of America, and to let the black people of America know what slavery struggles really ARE about, which are an attempt to get freedom, not an attempt to be made anyone’s pets.
Replacing the founder of the modern democRAT party with a black female, gun-toting Republican sounds ok by me.
Just wait till liberals figure that one out. THEY’LL be screaming to replace her, or cancel the request.
I say embrace Tubman, a gun-toting, Democrat-shooting Republican, to replace Democrat Jackson.
Pinging LS!
I would be most interested in any comment you might make about this article. Thanks so very much! (I realize you already gave me a headstart on another thread, but would be very glad to have elaboration!)
He was a great guy. A patriot through and through. Fought central banks. Brought the presidency to represent the people on the Frontier.
Tubman was worthy of solid respect aND commemoration.
We should honor both of them by putting Tubman on the $500 bill. $500 is worth astronomically more than it was during Jackson’s day. This would vindicate Jackson and honor Tubman at the same time. That’s my Solomon wisdom of the day.
It just tells me once again that our fiat, unbacked currency is simply a very ephemeral political construct.
Can this degeneration be reversed by a subsequent administration(excluding “The Wicked Witch Of The West.)? Anyone know?
Tubman is a deserving figure and better than the other names that had been thrown out there but I would have preferred a different denomination be the one chosen.
Replacing the slave owning founder of the Democrat party with a Christian, pro-gun Republican is fine with me. I don’t think the SJWs who came up with the swap thought of that, though.
The write reminds us of the so-called "progressive" Democrat Party's "Jefferson-Jackson Day" events.
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.
Have you noticed that white heroes, e.g. Columbus, are people who have actually accomplished great things. Black heroes, for the most part, have done only one thing: further the interests of blacks, usually at the expense of whites.
It would be much more appropriate to put the Tubman on an EBT card.
Not true: Both Harding and Coolidge ran surpluses every year and paid off 1/3 of the debt coming off of a war, a better record than Jackson’s.
After perusing most of the posts here is my two cents...
Negotiate with the Democrats. Yep, allow Tubman
(a Republican anyway) to replace Jackson (a Democrat)
on the twenty while Reagan replaces Grant on the fifty.
Some of our history minded Southern friends might
not mind trading Grant for Reagan.
All and all I would prefer to leave if alone. But if
the Rats want to push it then we need to get something
in return IMO.
How come none of us heard of this until after the decision was made?
A successful white man, American loving hero is not the person Emperor Obama wants. Rather, look for Che to be the next figure on American money.
All in the name of Obama’s legacy.........he truly is a despicable person, one upon whose rotting corpse even the maggots refuse to feast...........
This seems somewhat undermined by his forced removal of Cherokee and other Indian tribes, many of whom owned and had clear title to their lands, from the southeast to the west along "The Trail of Tears". Frontiersman David Crockett, who earlier admired Jackson, came to hate him for it.