Women's Poll Wants Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 Bill
148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kweh;47717737]How about replacing everyone with no one?[/QUOTE]
I'm voting for a freedom eagle crying a tear
Kinda weird actually the US doesn't have a single female on a bank note. We have 2/5 (and in the past when the 20 and 50 were valid 3/6)
[QUOTE=wraithcat;47719456]Kinda weird actually the US doesn't have a single female on a bank note. We have 2/5 (and in the past when the 20 and 50 were valid 3/6)[/QUOTE]
It's also weird that they would jump from none to putting someone that no one has ever heard of on the most commonly used and circulated note.
[QUOTE=unrezt;47719733]It's also weird that they would jump from none to putting someone that no one has ever heard of on the most commonly used and circulated note.[/QUOTE]
You kinda have to be an elementary school dropout to not know who Tubman was.
I would have gone with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper]Grace Hopper[/url] myself, but hey, I won't complain about Tubman
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47717967]iirc he also paid off all our national debt and bankrupt the entire country.
He was a shit president.[/QUOTE]
I can see why bankrupting a country is bad but why is paying off the national debt bad?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47717598]How about no.
All though Jackson was a right cunt, most of his attitude towards the banking system and assassination attempts redeems him :v:[/QUOTE]
So...
He commits genocide
Bombs the economy
And had a lot of people try to kill him
obviously these are good reason to keep him :downs:
[editline]13th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;47720567]I can see why bankrupting a country is bad but why is paying off the national debt bad?[/QUOTE]
Debt for countries isn't necessarily bad, unlike personal debt.
I vote we just say fuck it and put dickbutt on it
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47720587]
Debt for countries isn't necessarily bad, unlike personal debt.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if you want to be a slave to the banks.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;47720567]I can see why bankrupting a country is bad but why is paying off the national debt bad?[/QUOTE]
I think he bankrupted the country in the process of paying off the national debt, which he really didn't need to do.
Jackson was a stone cold prick. He signed the "Indian Removal Act" which was literally enforcing genocide. We have a genocidal president on our currency and people are upset that we're trying to replace him with a civil rights / folk hero
Put the Queen on it
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;47720762]Put the Queen on it[/QUOTE]
she's cool but she's not our queen so that doesn't work so well
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;47720669]I think he bankrupted the country in the process of paying off the national debt, which he really didn't need to do.
Jackson was a stone cold prick. He signed the "Indian Removal Act" which was literally enforcing genocide. We have a genocidal president on our currency and people are upset that we're trying to replace him with a civil rights / folk hero[/QUOTE]
This is a massive oversimplification. Not to mention wrong.
Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act because he believed in state sovereignty and saw the idea of negotiating with tribes living in them as going against that sovereignty; it was like negotiating with a foreign nation existing on Union land basically. The idea behind relocating them was that the tribes who did not assimilate and become Americans and obey state laws would be moved out West, past the Mississippi onto federal territory, where they could live freely and practice self-rule. States could then have control over their lands without the hassle of dealing with all these wild tribes living on them.
Truthfully, it was making the best of the situation. Jackson knew that the demise of the tribes was an inevitability of American industrialization and modernization. But he wanted to save them from being killed off by the states.
[quote]Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one many powerful tribes have disappeared from the earth. ... Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise and industry execute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?[/quote]
He was never the American Hitler, and as far as the Trail of Tears goes, the few thousand Cherokee Indians that died all died thanks to Martin Van Buren's bungling handling the relocation in 1838. He didn't want them to be annihilated, that's why he signed the act in the first place and believed they should be given the opportunity to relocate if they refused to assimilate. Two of his own children were adopted Indian orphans actually.
And as well, with the economic troubles of him paying off the national debt, it actually had more to do with poor speculation by private individuals and with his handling of the Second Bank and federal money for the aid of the states. Paying of the debt wasn't what caused the late-1830s depression.
[editline]14 May 2015[/editline]
I'm unashamedly defending Jackson, and I don't care.
Nevertheless, my vote for a $20 replacement goes for Theodore Roosevelt simply because of the extraordinary life he led and his tremendous accomplishments as president-- including the creation of our national parks and federal conservation and the Forestry Service, breaking up of monopolies, passing and support of labor laws and consumer protection laws...-- which I don't believe he receives his deserved credit for. He's been stamped on coins, never on bills. And that's really sad considering what he accomplished as a politician.
I'm not even ashamed to say I think this whole push to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 is a silly, meaningless gesture promoting political correctness and tolerance; while the intentions are good, that doesn't make it any less silly. It's just been a matter of tradition to put presidents on our common currency. Put her on a commemorative coin or something nice like that.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47717719]For real if you want an abolitionist why not put Frederick Douglass on it.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LqiGHLg.jpg[/img]
Imagine this face staring back at you every time you pull out a twenty.[/QUOTE]
Frederick Douglas is the Hank Aarons of the black justice league.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;47717671]Alexander Hamilton, the mug on the $10 wasn't a president.[/QUOTE]
No, but he's on the $10 because he founded our financial system.
[QUOTE=Govna;47720893]No, but he's on the $10 because he founded our financial system.[/QUOTE]
And Ben Franklin was an all-around vital founder of the country and an incredible guy in general.
Was Harriet Tubman not a better and stronger influence on America than Jackson?
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;47720914]And Ben Franklin was an all-around vital founder of the country and an incredible guy in general.
Was Harriet Tubman not a better and stronger influence on America than Jackson?[/QUOTE]
Which is why he's on the $100. He was also one of the most important figures of the founding era, for his political offices held and for his exploits as an ambassador... basically the champion of the American Enlightenment and, again, one of the most significant members of the Founding Fathers and figures of that entire era.
And to answer your question, no, Tubman never had a stronger influence on the United States than Andrew Jackson did. Or really than any other holder of the executive office did, with the exception of William Harrison. Because, you know, he died quickly after taking office.
If you really want to compare her to someone in terms of significance, compare her to Paul Revere or Booker T. Washington or better yet Susan B. Anthony. She was a very important part of American iconography and historically memorable, for obvious reasons, but she never was a major political figure or responsible for building or legislating any sweeping reforms or instituting any policies for change or actually leading anything herself. Not saying there's anything wrong in that, but that's just how it happened.
So why is it so important to put her likeness on the $20 exactly? Again, I know why so many people want to: it's a feel-good gesture. "We've got a black humanitarian woman from the 19th century on a common bank note. Look at how progressive and tolerant we are." That doesn't make it any less silly; there's literally dozens of other figures from our history who have done more to deserve to be commemorated on the $20 for it.
My point is this: this whole thing is silly. Jackson doesn't need to be taken off the $20 in the first place. Learn to leave shit alone and not create pointless controversy. If you really are that hell-bent on taking him off though, then please, replace him with somebody more important than Harriet Tubman. Believe it or not, there have been figures out there in American history who did do more than she did. Somebody else even mentioned Frederick Douglass, who practically led the abolitionist movement; I'd be inclined to support him over Tubman.
In any case, I still support no change necessary. That's my first choice. Already have given my second choice twice here.
[QUOTE=Govna;47720827]This is a massive oversimplification. Not to mention wrong.
Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act because he believed in state sovereignty and saw the idea of negotiating with tribes living in them as going against that sovereignty; it was like negotiating with a foreign nation existing on Union land basically. The idea behind relocating them was that the tribes who did not assimilate and become Americans and obey state laws would be moved out West, past the Mississippi onto federal territory, where they could live freely and practice self-rule. States could then have control over their lands without the hassle of dealing with all these wild tribes living on them.
Truthfully, it was making the best of the situation. Jackson knew that the demise of the tribes was an inevitability of American industrialization and modernization. But he wanted to save them from being killed off by the states.
He was never the American Hitler, and as far as the Trail of Tears goes, the few thousand Cherokee Indians that died all died thanks to Martin Van Buren's bungling handling the relocation in 1838. He didn't want them to be annihilated, that's why he signed the act in the first place and believed they should be given the opportunity to relocate if they refused to assimilate. Two of his own children were adopted Indian orphans actually.
And as well, with the economic troubles of him paying off the national debt, it actually had more to do with poor speculation by private individuals and with his handling of the Second Bank and federal money for the aid of the states. Paying of the debt wasn't what caused the late-1830s depression.
[editline]14 May 2015[/editline]
I'm unashamedly defending Jackson, and I don't care.[/QUOTE]
" Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise and industry execute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?"
he literally says right here that the native americans are inferior as a justification for what he's doing...
Reagan, perhaps?
Sure, he's a bit controversial, but to say he didn't do great for our country...
[QUOTE=Govna;47720827]
He was never the American Hitler, and as far as the Trail of Tears goes, the few thousand Cherokee Indians that died all died thanks to Martin Van Buren's bungling handling the relocation in 1838. He didn't want them to be annihilated, that's why he signed the act in the first place and believed they should be given the opportunity to relocate if they refused to assimilate. Two of his own children were adopted Indian orphans actually.
[/QUOTE]
How nice to give them the opportunity to fuck off from their homes. You really going for the "but he adopted indians" route to write apologetics for a shit president?
And I would put Douglas on it too, more of a figure of the same caliber.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47721199]Reagan, perhaps?
Sure, he's a bit controversial, but to say he didn't do great for our country...[/QUOTE]
He didn't do great for our country. He's basically the father of everything that's currently wrong with the Republican party.
When will we get the George W Bush moneyz?
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not have people on it at all. There was a redesign done by an man named Travis Purrington for a Master Thesis, and I have to say I really like it. Instead of having a few people thrown up on a pedestal regardless of how important they are. Instead this redesign focuses on our technological accomplishments as a country and our ingenuity as a people which I think is a much better idea as a currency and is sure as hell pleasing to look at. It'll NEVER happen, as our dollar is highly iconic but it's still a fantastic design.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FDtkJ6p.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RrVUfXq.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lUTTSA1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rvqV9E3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9z5bSWQ.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.travispurrington.com/211378/2317660/gallery/2014-usd-proposal[/url]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47717598]most of his attitude towards the banking system and assassination attempts redeems him :v:[/QUOTE]
A lot of the opposition to the bank was from southern plantation owners (Jackson himself owned slaves and a plantation), who saw it as a threat to their business.
Also a lot of the money from the dissolution of the bank went into the pockets of his supporters, and he violated the constitution. Plus when he got rid of the bank he basically massively deregulated the financial sector, contributing to speculation and eventually triggering a depression in 1837 that lasted for several years. Not to mention he started the spoils system.
Andrew Jackson against financial interests and corruption? Pfft.
Replace him with Harriet Tubman. At least she did more to help the United States than he ever did.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47721199]Reagan, perhaps?
Sure, he's a bit controversial, but to say he didn't do great for our country...[/QUOTE]
What's our obsession with people putting presidents who destroyed the dollar on the bill.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47721199]Reagan, perhaps?
Sure, he's a bit controversial, but to say he didn't do great for our country...[/QUOTE]
Iran-Contra affair, gave poison gas to Saddam so he could bomb Kurds and Iranians, Star Wars and the backing of death squads?
put Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47717719]For real if you want an abolitionist why not put Frederick Douglass on it.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LqiGHLg.jpg[/img]
Imagine this face staring back at you every time you pull out a twenty.[/QUOTE]
Oh dude Freddy Douglass would be fucking [I]awesome[/I]
Actually I'd vote we put Andrew Jackson Jihad on the 20 dollar bill.
How about we just replace the presidents with randomly chosen photographs from the U.S. drivers photo database
Just imagine how depressing and awkward money would look
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.