A $20 for your thoughts....

So I actually dont know for sure how many people have heard about this....I assume alot, but I may be dealing with a nonrepresentational sample of people based on where I work, but earlier this week there was an announcement that there will be a new $20 Bill, featuring Harriet Tubman, replacing Andrew Jackson on the front of the bill.

To be honest before the announcement was made as to *who* would be on the bill, I assumed reaction would range from disinterested/disappointed to enthusiastic.

Turns out I was wrong.......while lots of people are thrilled that a woman, and a minority is going on our currency, it turns out there is an equally large group of people who want to know what that uppity woman is doing on Money instead of being in the kitchen where she belongs.

Now to be fair, I dont want to claim EVERYONE who dislikes Harriet Tubman going on the $20 is racist or sexist.....mostly because I'd have to include myself, as I am not a huge fan of the idea of putting her on money (Taking Jackson OFF the money on the other hand I am all for, as anyone who read my worst presidents blog knows)

Thing is my objection has very little to do with her being a woman or a minority and having the nerve to be on money, and more about her level of fame.  As I understood the goal of the "Women on money" movement the idea was to raise the national awareness of the contributions of women in our history. Thing is, for Harriet Tubman this is already a fait accompli. Shes already one of the most famous and well known women in out history, so it seems a waste to put her on the $20, and not use the space to boost the profile of a lesser known but perhaps equally as influential woman, like say Frances Perkins, Dorothea Dix, Jeannette Rankin, or Mary Lyon.

Course not surprisingly most of the people who object dont really seem to have my kind of objections in mind.

Now to be far most of them (at least the ones in the public sphere) are smart enough to not out-rightly object. They prefer to phrase it in ways like what happened on Fox and Friends (or as my mom calls it two dumbasses and a blonde on the couch):

BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): Meanwhile, there’s another big story, Jack Lew, the Treasury secretary. has decided not to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10.

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): Thank goodness.

KILMEADE: Instead, he’s going to take off Alexander, excuse me, Andrew Jackson on the $20, and replace him with a great American that saved hundreds from a life of slavery, Harriet Tubman. And that, she’s an unbelievable person, obviously, historic, vital to America's past, but just the taking apart of our history, taking off our seventh president is something that I can't believe that we would go ahead and do.

DOOCY: So Jackson actually, you know, some don't like him because of they say he brutally suppressed the Indians and he was a slave owner. Of course, back then a lot of people owned slaves. He'll be on the back of the bill.

KILMEADE: Our seventh president was an extraordinary American. He is a true American story, lost both his parents, his brother. Was actually a courier in the Revolutionary War, was beaten by the British, almost killed. Became this incredible general that won the Battle of New Orleans and Pensacola and became a two-term president. Left extremely popular.

Now before I rip these fools, I do have to be fair, they do have a small point. Many if not most of the media are claiming the MAJOR reason Jackson was removed from the front of the bill was because he was a slave holder. There are however 2 major problems with this claim:

Pretty sure these guys arnt going anywhere any time soon

So in that sense Tweedledumb and Tweedledickhead are right....if Jackson was ONLY being taken off the front of the bill cause he owned slaves, he probably would be back cause we kinda accept the whole "slaveholding was seen very differently at the time than it is now" thing

The bigger issue is the piece they quickly mentioned (to their credit to be fair) and rushed past "he brutally suppressed the Indians".  And the thing is, its actually a pretty fair comparison to say Jackson suppressed the "Indians" the same way Hitler suppressed the Jews.

By which I mean the Trail of Tears, the forced death march of many native Americans westward to inhospitable lands in which tens of thousands would die along the way. And thats literally just ONE example.

Oh by the way his war is pretty shit too. Yes he did win the one battle in New Orleans.....but that whole indian removal and genocide thing, yea that started the Black Hawk War, the Second Creek War and the Second Seminole War(the longest war against natives in US history)....oh yea by the way, we arguably LOST that last one.....which is what eventually started the Third Seminole War....which we claimed we evenually won after "removing" all the Seminoles from Florida....though I imagine thats news to the 4000 Seminoles still living there today. (in otherwords we gave up trying).

By the way, you want to know what caused the First Seminole war? a guy by the name of Andrew Jackson who basically started the war when he showed up in Florida (at the time owned by Spain) in the 1810's  masquerading as British to meet with two native leaders then had them executed for fun. He then had two British subjects (Alexander George Arbuthnot and Robert C. Ambrister) executed for "illegally" trading with natives (keep in mind, these were 2 British Citizens in Spanish Territory, so US law shouldnt apply) actions for which he was investigated by congress (who found major wrongdoings in his actions) and almost led to war with Britain...again. 

Note the theme here.....thats 4 or so wars started by Jackson because Native Americans were being Native Americans in places.

Finally "how great he was as president" is also a recurring theme

For example former Presidential candidate Ben Carson:

"Well I think Andrew Jackson was a tremendous secretary — I mean a tremendous president,” the former presidential candidate said Wednesday on Fox Business. “I mean, Andrew Jackson was the last president who actually balanced the federal budget, where we had no national debt."

Actually last president to balance the budget was Bill Clinton...(and Eisenhower before him) but hey.

Now Carson is right about Jackson being the last president to have no national debt. Problem is he had NOTHING to do with it. Under the presidency of James Monroe a law was passed requiring congress to pay back $10 Million dollars in debt every year. When Jackson took office the debt was 58 Million. 6 years later, the debt was gone.....exactly as scheduled.

Of course thats not to say Jackson did NOTHING during those 6 years. No see during that time he destroyed the Second Bank of the United States.

Which became a bit of a problem in 1836 (the first year without debt) as we actually had a surplus....but no where to put it, so Jackson just gave it away (instead of you know saving it, or even using it on proposed infrastructure bills like say building a national network of roads). And without a national Bank...well state banks started printing as much money as they wanted, massively devaluing currency, and eventually leading to the Panic of 1837.....which is the longest uninterrupted economic depression in US history, that would eventually leave 1/3 of the states totally bankrupt (which created the start of the current national debt)

Jackson, by the way was such a successful president that after he left office in 1837 (just before the panic) there wouldn't be a 2 term democratic president again util 1913, 76 years later, with the election of Woodrow Wilson (who would by the way basically reverse what Jackson did, setting up the federal reserve and spending money on the first federal highway system).

Which might be why some conservatives are trying a slightly different tact here, and saying not that Jackson was a great president or anything, but only that this is an unprecedented move and spits in the face of tradition. Like Fox News, Greta Van Susteren

"Let's all go off-the-record. Don't you wonder why some people don't just use their heads? Well, the Obama Administration did it again. Went stupid. And went stupid for no reason. Here's what's happening: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is creating a fight, a 100 percent completely unnecessary fight, by booting President Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replacing him with a woman, abolitionist Harriet Tubman. You all know I'm a feminist, love to see women acknowledged for the great things they do to contribute to our nation, and Harriet Tubman did and she deserves it. What I don't get is this. Rather than dividing the country between those who happen to like the tradition of our currency and want President Andrew Jackson to stay put and those who want to put a woman on the bill, it's so easy keep everyone happy. We could put a woman on a bill. Tubman, acknowledge her courage and not stir up the country. But give Tubman her own bill like a $25 bill. We could use a $25 bill. Put her picture on that and we could all celebrate. That's the smart and easy thing to do. But, no. Some people don't think, would rather gratuitously stir up conflict in the nation. That is so awful, and yes, dumb."

 And shes got a point. I mean check out this original first printing $20 bill from 1914 and think of the tradition we are disrupting here:

Ok so I admit, thats a horrible picture of Jackson...I dont know why they added a mustache to him...or misspelled his last name as Cleveland.

So yea to sum up it would be totally unprecedented to replace the guy who replaced the original guy on the $20, and instead we should give the African American a separate but equal bill.....which will say $25 on it but probibily only count as $15. (cause 3/5ths of 25 is 15.....)

Luckily for us, some republicans at least figured out the "separate but equal" appearances of creating a new bill for the minority person so they have their own idea

Per Republican Fuher Donald Trump:

Ah see. Look at that great compromise put forth by Il Duce....we can just put the minority on the $2...you know the one that we dont actually print that many of and is barely circulated (in fact its so rare CNN falsely reported it "is no longer printed"....but hey really whos shocked the media prints first, fact checks second?). So we wont have to make a separate but equal bill for her......instead we just put her on one we never ever have to look at so we can all pretend black folks and women dont exist. 

By the way, the tradition argument gets even worse if we go back beyond current Federal Reserve Notes, to the original Demand Notes, the first EVER issues nationally. So here's what the original $20 bill from 1861 looked like:

Thats a woman (Lady Liberty) on the $20.........so hows that for Tradition huh?

But hey, again these are facts, and Im trying to present them to conservatives....youd think by now Id know that never works.