Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Andrew Jackson - I would say the deciding factor of him being there on the 20 dollar bills was The Battle of New Orleans. He was considered an American hero back then.
he was the first true "common man" to become President; and the age of Jackson is often called the Age of the Common Man. He also is credited for preserving the Union at a time when his Vice President, John C. Calhoun led a protest against the Tariff of 1828 in which South Carolina threatened to secede.
Jackson is seen as being very significant because he is a symbol for the idea that all Americans are equal and that you don't have to have been born to an elite family to get ahead.
That said, Jackson has his bad points. Specifically, he was very anti-Indian and he was a slave holder. Of course, both Washington and Jefferson had slaves too so that is no disqualification.
Shouldn't remove him from the bill in my opinion.
So like I posted earlier, she deserves to be honored. Absolutely. But Andrew Jackson, shouldn't be removed unless you insist on judging a historical figure using perfect hindsight.
every country has those moments. Look at how Australians treated their aborigines. And nobody seems to bring up Belgium anymore, which did things so bad to the Africans that European lodged complaints.
Yet as an American you partake in the fruits of his efforts. I'm sick to death of the pollyanna view of the world that Americans have today. "Horrible things, genocidal things" have been done by every group of people on Earth and it continues to this day. Andrew Jackson only did what the Indians would have done to him had they been able to. Andrew Jackson fought in the Revolution, was a decorated war hero, a statesmen, and the last president to successfully kill off a central bank. The word "hero" falls short of accurately describing him. He is an American titan, a giant of our history. Only now with our fragile feelings and overly protected selves are we incapable as a nation of taking a nuanced view of history and of great men.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Washington oversaw the deaths of a lot of men (they were white though so their lives don't matter historically). Should they be stripped from American history. Yes, great men sometimes did bad things, boo hoo. That is the way of the world. You don't have to celebrate it, but I'm not going to cry about it either. The Indians killed a lot of whites, sometimes in brutal and sadistic fashion. Ultimately they were out manned, and out gunned so they lost. They wouldn't shed any tears for us or shame their ancestors if history had turned out differently.
Hahaha, sometimes great men did bad things.....so said the administrative assistant of every manipulative dictator.
Jackson's legacy has been treated unfairly, for a purpose. Should we make a sweeping generalization and judgement against Churchill for Dresden, or Truman for Hiroshima, as has been done against President Jackson?
Great men are rarely good men, and Jackson was a Scots-Irish duelist, Indian fighter and slave owner. But then, Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were slave owners before him.
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions.
In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.
Setting precedence for Lincoln's courageous, but costly - ~620,000 lives lost, roughly half of all American soldiers lost in all wars - decision to defend the union.
Quote:
Jackson Stands Against Disunion
Though Jackson believed strongly in federalism and decentralized government, he still thought there was a role for the federal government under the Constitution that also couldn’t be violated by the states. He put his foot down when Southern radicals attempted to “nullify” tariffs legally passed by Congress. Jackson generally advocated for freer trade, but the law and the Union came first.
Many of the nullifiers hoped that Jackson’s strong inclination toward limited government would move him into their political camp, but Jackson would have none of it. At a celebration of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday filled with militant nullifiers, Jackson made a toast of seven words, which Ronald Reagan called among the most important any American has ever spoken: “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved.”
Jackson drew the line of what is acceptable under the Constitution, and negotiated for a reduction in the tariffs. He staved off one of the most threatening constitutional crises in American history and ended the threat of anarchy and secession, giving Abraham Lincoln and his supporters strong historical precedent for the perpetual union during the Civil War.
It's fun to watch isn't it. They'll get so mad they'll have to go out and shoot something.
Fun huh.. so you enjoy watching someone get so mad that they go out shooting something or someone
Maybe Obama can pass an executive order to rid the nation of of guns so there wont be any more shootings. Then what? I guess when those racists don't have guns to shoot people with they'll result to using rope and start lynching people.
The entire race issue here in America is getting so old. The argument as I see it is that it seems Harriet Tubman was voted for simply because she was a black woman. The administration wants to see more diversity and wants to push black people / black history more in the forefront. I don't think it's racist to point that out or to support it but I do understand those who also feel that it being forced on the nation like it is can be troubling. That is when you take something like a federal reserve note of any denomination and then want to spend millions of dollars of tax payer money to change it just because you want to see more diversity and for that I think is wrong.
In the case of replacing a president who has become a fixture on a bill I find it offensive, disrespectful and no different than changing the name of a building or airport to another name after it had already been named in the honor of someone else. That would be like changing the name of Martin Luther King BLVD to Harriet Tubman BLVD and regardless of them both being black people the fact is you would disrespect Mr King for removing his name.
In regards to Harriet Tubman, I think there are much better ways to honor her legacy and contributions but coming to a consensus is first needed.
If it's your definition we are using, then the answer is "yes."
It's everybody's definition!
Racism and sexism is never acceptable no matter it is done to black white yellow brown whomever.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 04-23-2016 at 07:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
