http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/20/report-lew-considered-anthony-10-bill/83274530/

If you aren't aware, US Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew announced that Harriet Tubman would be replacing Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill by 2020. Jackson will instead be present on the back of the bill. This decision came after discussions of taking Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill in favor of a woman was met with harsh criticism and backlash. However, there are still some who are not pleased with this change to the currency.

Earlier today my friend group got into a pretty heated debate with some decent arguments for both sides so I want to hear some other opinions on this issue. Should Andrew Jackson be replaced? Is Harriet Tubman a suitable replacement? If not, why and who would be a better replacement?

(Obviously this topic is aimed at others living in America)

What exactly were the arguments on either side? I'm curious.

I'll make a quick list of those that I heard.

For the change:
-Jackson stood for a racist agenda as he owned slaves and caused the Trail of Tears.
-Jackson caused an economic depression (the Panic of 1837).
-Being a huge opponent of central banking and paper money, Jackson would be thrilled to be taken off of the notes.
-Tubman is a symbol for the American ideals of Freedom and Justice.
-Jackson ignored orders from the Supreme Court, which claimed that his actions were unconstitutional.
-Jackson isn't even being taken off, just moved to the back.

Against the change:
-Jackson was an American war hero who was much more impactful than Tubman was.
-The move to put Tubman on the new bill was made purely out of a bid for political correctness.
-The story of Jackson's rise to office (being born into poverty to a single immigrant mother) is a powerful example of the American Dream.
-Jackson was a founding member of the Democratic party and pushed for an expansion of voting rights to more people.
-There are other Black Americans (some mentioned were Frederick Douglass, and MLK) more deserving of being on the bill than Tubman.


There are obviously many others but these are the ones that I remember hearing in our argument.

Okay, so personally, I have to say I'm with a compromise. Andrew Jackson was not a very good president, by most standards, but he was an excellent colonel (and later general). It might even be argued that he saved the nation as a whole during the War of 1812 with his victories, including the dramatic Battle of New Orleans, a true example of the American spirit.

Even as a president, despite his shortcomings, he did do a few good things, such as you listed above.

Harriet Tubman was part of the underground railroad for slaves, and worked hard to help the enslaved African-Americans, and later women's suffrage.

On the flip side, she worked as a Union spy during the Civil War, and also many of the slaves she saved were funneled into Canada (then still British) instead of American's New England. Because of this, it may be argued that her standing, while good for civil liberties and equal rights, has undertones that work against both the Southern states and American individualism/national pride.

While I can understand the desire to have a black person (and/or a woman) on a dollar bill, I do NOT believe Harriet Tubman is the right choice. Personally, I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would be a far better choice, since he stood for the rights of many American groups, not just blacks, yet still strongly supported his beloved country.

Of course, if they want a woman, there are a vast number of choices, so I won't go into that.

Quote from Alphaeus

Andrew Jackson was not a very good president, by most standards

This is actually very debatable, and many people go back and forth whether or not he was a "good" president. There isn't a consensus, so I wouldn't go ahead and assume there is one.

Quote from frNME

For the change:
-Jackson stood for a racist agenda as he owned slaves and caused the Trail of Tears.
-Jackson caused an economic depression (the Panic of 1837).
-Being a huge opponent of central banking and paper money, Jackson would be thrilled to be taken off of the notes.
-Tubman is a symbol for the American ideals of Freedom and Justice.
-Jackson ignored orders from the Supreme Court, which claimed that his actions were unconstitutional.
-Jackson isn't even being taken off, just moved to the back.

Honestly though, points 1 and 3 are really the only semi-legitimate arguments I can see. 1 for self-explanatory reasons and 3 because knowing Jackson's past, it might actually be true (but it's such a vain thing to argue about anyway). Every other reason had arguably positive effects, isn't exactly a point compelling enough to be relevant, or is something that many other venerated presidents are guilty of.

Andrew Jackson was the best president, and I will go in much more detail after work <3

Quote from Arch-Angel

Andrew Jackson was the best president, and I will go in much more detail after work <3

(I personally agree. Please note that when I said "most standards" in my above post, I was not including my own... ;P, so I'm looking forward to this)

I have no idea why I wrote that in parenthesis...

I actually heard something about this but I thought it was some sort of joke. I honestly see no reason to change the bill. The bill has been around for a long time and no one or nothing significant has came or happened to grant a change in the currency.

Quote from Preserve

I actually heard something about this but I thought it was some sort of joke. I honestly see no reason to change the bill. The bill has been around for a long time and no one or nothing significant has came or happened to grant a change in the currency.

Well some could argue that there has been a significant shift in the ideals that are valued. Jackson may have represented ideals that were once valued more than those that Tubman represents and the opposite may be the case today. Whether or not that is actually the case or it is "significant" is obviously subject to debate.

1. I hate all this politically correctness bullshit.
2. Andrew Jackson was a badass.

In the end I don't look at my money when I spend it, so I don't really give a fuck who's on it, as long as a $20 bill is still worth $20. Also I've had some people complain about "how much money it's going to cost to reprint all the $20 bills" I just face-palmed and walked away. Because ya know... we've never changed bills or coins before, and they differently just recall all the $20s in circulation to reprint them.

...we need a facepalm emoji. Somebody get me a facepalm meme, my head hurts.

There are good reasons for both sides. However, I am with Ashlander and hate this political correctness stuff. I feel like they are trying to kill two birds with one stone. I would much rather see MLK on the bill.
I won't say that Jackson wasn't a good president, but he wasn't an honorable person. If you disagree, read more about him. Yet, he was a good president and did some incredible stuff that makes him worthy of being on the bill, but so have many other people, and maybe a change isn't a bad thing.
The thing I am against the most is leaving both people on the bill. It doesn't fit with the rest and seems like they're halving both people's worth by putting them together. Besides, I definitely think neither of them would like that much themselves.

Bottom line, though, I'm not completely against either side and would accept either $20 bill because it's money and both people were great in some respects. Money is money.