Should Andrew Jackson’s Image Be Removed From The $20 Bill?

Columnist Arthur Chu had a primal scream of an article published in this past week’s Daily Beast titled “The Mass Murderer On Your $20”. In it, the leftist writer decries having the double sawbuck tainted with the image of a man whom the author views as a psychotic “mass murderer” of the American Indians, an “anti-intellectual” demagogue, & a bully whose “presidency demonstrate(d) the ugliness of an American populace that wanted to be led” by him.

But you know what? If the Reagan people want to put Ronald Reagan on the $20 bill and boot Andrew Jackson off, I’m all for it.

The problem with Chu’s article is that there’s no context to it. He’s quick to highlight the ugly, indisputable facts that tarnish – if not damn – Jackson’s tenure as our nation’s seventh president but he fails to comprehend why many historians place the man among the “greats” of American history (which is material for another blog in & of itself).

Nor does Chu want to confront the fact that today’s Democrat Party owes its existence to Jackson (he was a co-founder) & that the ugliness Chu thinks Jackson alone personified was actually an ugliness shared by many within the party itself.

He was a “man of the people,” in that his election marked the beginning of content-free, vicious mass-media-driven personality politics. Although operatives of both sides slung copious quantities of mud, Jackson’s opponent John Quincy Adams was personally one of the most educated, idealistic, decent people to serve as president, and was thus easily taken down by Jackson as being a limp-wristed, out-of-touch elitist you wouldn’t want to have a beer with.

This set the tone for attacks to be used against educated, idealistic, decent people for the entire future history of American politics. Neither sushi nor lattes were commonly consumed in America in 1828, but one gets the feeling if they had been they would have figured prominently in Jackson’s campaign.

As more & more young leftists like Chu discover the truth about the Democrat Party’s sordid past, they’ll either dismiss it, denounce it, or ignore it. But if they want to expunge one of their party’s founding father’s from his place on the $20 bill and replace Jackson with Reagan, who am I to disagree? So I now ask the RMG community: should Jackson’s image be dropped from the $20 bill? If so, which past American president should have his image replace that of Jackson’s?

About ConcernedVoterInMass

  • will remind the Democrats of their sordid past.

    The mob mentality neither accepts nor cares about its sordid past…..it merely moves on to the next cause that furthers its goals of power without ever having to accept/admit or have to deal with its past.

    That’s the whole point of having the mob mentality.  Never have to admit anything…move on to the next claim/cause.

  • It would be a temporary thing. He’d eventually call for Reagan to be removed because he “did nothing about AIDS” or something. The goal is to make money the plaything of SJWs. President who owned slaves? Sorry Jefferson, you need go too. What woman or minority should he be replaced with? Every few years they will rotate someone new in who doesn’t offend SJW sensibilities.  

  • How about a picture of Bam Bam cutting the head of Andrew Jackson with a scimitar.  

  • He was just a son of a *****.  I would be happy to see him replaced by Reagan, or better by Calvin Coolidge, the last president to actually shrink the size of government while in office !  Of course, if we get rid of Jackson, somebody will want to take Grant off the $50. Grant saved the union ! Maybe we should let well enough alone.  BTW has anyone noticed how on the new $20 Jackson’s hair has a permanent wave ?

  • Vote3rdpartynow

    I would not have any person’s likeness on the dollar bill, or coin, or any federal, state or local office.  I think it is wrong to use public funds to dedicate a place or monetary note to a specific person.  I also would not dedicate local intersections to fallen veterans.  I simply do not think it is right to do it..

    Now, if people feel strongly enough about a certain politician that they wish to preserve his/her legacy then I have absolutely no problem with people raising money thru private donations and putting up their own building, museum or issuing a coin in their honor.  

    Yes, I even think it was wrong to create Mount Rushmore, which was created using federal funds…  

    My tax money should not go to worship humans or deify politicians…

  • If Old Hickory really has to go, my second choice substitute (after RR) would be William Henry Harrison. He didn’t wreck the economy, run up the national debt, sic the IRS on his opponents, usurp the legislative branch, start (or shirk) any foreign wars, and didn’t degrade the office by fooling around with his interns. His presidency is persistently under-rated, for some reason.