US money changing again

Alexander Hamilton gets to stay on the front of the $10 note. Harriet Tubman will knock Andrew Jackson off the $20 spot’s front. Other changes, too.

Lew is expected to roll out a set of changes that also include putting leaders of the women’s suffrage movement on the back of the $10 bill, and incorporating civil rights era leaders and other important moments in American history into the $5 bill.

Also, Jackson isn’t getting completely booted off the $20 bill. He’s likely to remain on the back.

At least we get to continue saying we’re “All about the Hamiltons, baby.”

Dumping Jackson instead of Hamilton?

Change we can believe in.

I’m in favor of that. Not a fan of A. Jackson

Would Jackson even have wanted his picture on money issued by a federal bank?

Oddly, a big part of the reason that Hamilton gets to stay on the bill is the popularity of the Broadway musical.

Queue outrage from old white men in 5… 4…

(don’t mean on this forum, just generally)

Which is akin to making the right choice for the wrong reasons. Jackson being kicked off is the right choice, not kicking him off for scuttling the reconstruction and being a bit of a racist prick is the wrong reason.

Personally I think Sacagewea on the bill would have been the perfect fuck you to Andrew Jackson.

Tubman is a good call though.

Hamilton was an elitist asshole, but he was instrumental in creating the national bank, and turning the treasury into what it is now. So, he probably deserves to be on a bill.

Oh, I’ll bet comments sections all over the web will be so much fun for a few days.

Oh, good call. It’s going to be fun to whittle through contacts on Twitter and Facebook.


And, to be clear, it would be very very hard to designate any historical political figure that we couldn’t tear down. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, we could tear them all down based on racism/ elitism/ slavery/etc. Through modern eyes each could be constructed as a monster, if wished.

But its an exercise in futility. There isn’t any redeeming factor to positively promote as reason to include him on a bill. Which should be the standard applied. Rather than search for flaws for why they should be excluded, instead find positive reasons to include them. EDIT: Move along, mistakes were made when typing while eating.

Andrew Jackson died in 1845. How would the SCV or reconstruction involve him?

Damn, you’re right. Brain fart on my part. That’s what I get for typing while eating. Johnson holds that distinction, not Jackson. Jackson had some racist policies, but none related to post Civil War (obviously, he was dead).

I think CraigM was thinking of Andrew Johnson, another scion of Tennessee. I worked on the Papers of James K. Polk, co-located at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville with the Papers of Andrew Jackson and the Papers of Andrew Johnson. All those Tennessee boys, hard to tell 'em apart.

Is this thing on? :P

Cool changes. And yet, we still have the penny.

You don’t think I actually read anything on this stupid forum, do you?

Only one of them was worthy of an absolutely bangin’ They Might Be Giants song, sir. Why the fuck hasn’t Polk gotten on a bill yet? Just that crummy dollar coin everyone gets…

James K. Polk: the last good thing to come out of Tennessee?

Always lagging our neighbor to the north.