Harriet Tubman is the next face of the $20 bill; $5 and $10 bills will also change

[Kelly]

​

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-harriet-tubman-20-bill-20160420-story.html

I'm kind of torn about all of this...I admire every person that they are wanting to put on our currency, amazing people...ALL OF THEM. Taking Jackson off the front and putting him on the back is fine with me....but, what does that signify? That we are slow to change? Why not take him off all together?

I take a pause in thinking, is this how we truly honor these people? I don't know the answer to that...but it will definitely be an interesting debate.

I would like to hear all of your thoughts on this as well....

 

[Matt]

Personally, I do not want Jackson taken off of the twenty. I think he should be kept on the front, to be honest. I am all for adding diversity to our currency, honoring those who have not sat in the Oval Office or played a role in our country's founding. But Jackson, for all his shortcomings, did a lot of good for our country. Should we be taking Washington off of the $1 because he owned slaves? Should we take Jefferson off of the nickle? In twenty years will people point out some dubious comment Tubman made and folks will clamor to remove her from the $20? This whole thing feels like they are punishing Jackson and trying to retroactively paint a negative perception of his legacy. I have noticed this trend in recent years and I maintain that Jackson is a top tier President, no matter how unfortunate and misguided the Trail of Tears was (it should also be noted that a good many historians, a majority even, consider the Trail of Tears to be a good thing, because the alternative would've been inevitable, all out war, which would've ended in genocide for the Native Americans...Jackson picked the best of two bad options).

Also, I am a little irked by this because I believe we are overlooking deserving presidents simply because they are white men. Neither of the Roosevelts, Adams, Madison, JFK, Eisenhower, Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, or Truman have been placed on regularly circulated paper money. Its almost as if, despite their amazing contributions to our country and the world, they are disqualified merely on the grounds that they are white men. That just doesn't sit well with me.

Maybe I am old school, but I think the face on a bill should be reserved for only our founding fathers or the President of the United States. I believe that Tubman, MLK, Susan B. Anthony, etc should all be honored on the back of the bill. But in terms of the face on the front, I want it to be POTUS or a Framer.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Glad that Jackson is being reduced on the $20. I dunno about Harriet Turman though. Not to downplay the role she has played in American history, but I think that maybe we should have MLK or Susan B. Anthony on instead.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Personally, I do not want Jackson taken off of the twenty. I think he should be kept on the front, to be honest. I am all for adding diversity to our currency, honoring those who have not sat in the Oval Office or played a role in our country's founding. But Jackson, for all his shortcomings, did a lot of good for our country. Should we be taking Washington off of the $1 because he owned slaves? Should we take Jefferson off of the nickle? In twenty years will people point out some dubious comment Tubman made and folks will clamor to remove her from the $20? This whole thing feels like they are punishing Jackson and trying to retroactively paint a negative perception of his legacy. I have noticed this trend in recent years and I maintain that Jackson is a top tier President, no matter how unfortunate and misguided the Trail of Tears was (it should also be noted that a good many historians, a majority even, consider the Trail of Tears to be a good thing, because the alternative would've been inevitable, all out war, which would've ended in genocide for the Native Americans...Jackson picked the best of two bad options).

Also, I am a little irked by this because I believe we are overlooking deserving presidents simply because they are white men. Neither of the Roosevelts, Adams, Madison, JFK, Eisenhower, Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, or Truman have been placed on regularly circulated paper money. Its almost as if, despite their amazing contributions to our country and the world, they are disqualified merely on the grounds that they are white men. That just doesn't sit well with me.

Maybe I am old school, but I think the face on a bill should be reserved for only our founding fathers or the President of the United States. I believe that Tubman, MLK, Susan B. Anthony, etc should all be honored on the back of the bill. But in terms of the face on the front, I want it to be POTUS or a Framer.

The difference between Jackson and Washington/Jefferson in regards to the slave issue is that Jackson was unashamed in his owning of slaves. Washington and Jefferson on the other hand were similar to Robert E. Lee, while they owned slaves, and were certainly racist, they weren't exactly fond of the institution of slavery and recognized the flaws involved with the system.

Also Jackson was an insane murderer who had no respect for constitutional limits and engaged in some of the worst treatment of Native Americans in our nation's history.

 

[DDS]

Get rid of Jackson altogether from the $20, he wouldn't have ever wanted his face on paper currency anyway.

100% on board for Tubman also. The only movie Tubman has ever been in is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I'm more than fine with some so-called "affirmative action" to get this woman represented.

 

[CaptainWagner]

The difference between Jackson and Washington/Jefferson in regards to the slave issue is that Jackson was unashamed in his owning of slaves. Washington and Jefferson on the other hand were similar to Robert E. Lee, while they owned slaves, and were certainly racist, they weren't exactly fond of the institution of slavery and recognized the flaws involved with the system.

Also Jackson was an insane murderer who had no respect for constitutional limits and engaged in some of the worst treatment of Native Americans in our nation's history.

Exactly. Jackson has no business being on our money and would never have wanted to be there in the first place.

 

[DDS]

Also, I am a little irked by this because I believe we are overlooking deserving presidents simply because they are white men. Neither of the Roosevelts, Adams, Madison, JFK, Eisenhower, Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, or Truman have been placed on regularly circulated paper money. Its almost as if, despite their amazing contributions to our country and the world, they are disqualified merely on the grounds that they are white men. That just doesn't sit well with me.

They aren't "disqualified" for being white men, but it's just a fact that being white men, they had huge advantages to get into positions of power, as well as better representation already. All those men you listed just weren't on an even playing field with the likes of Tubman, so of course they were probably going to achieve more as part of our government.

 

[Sithborg]

At times, I wonder if people want to keep Jackson on the $20 just for the sheer irony.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Exactly. Jackson has no business being on our money and would never have wanted to be there in the first place.

He's probably spinning in his grave. He spent his entire career fighting against centralized banking.

 

[Victarion]

I want Jackson's parrot on the back of the bill. That's interesting - I had no idea about him fighting against the big banks. Does seem like a joke on their behalf. A kind of "ha ha take that pal."

 

[DDS]

He's probably spinning in his grave. He spent his entire career fighting against centralized banking.

Of course, I'm not sure how much happier he'd be if he knew a black abolitionist woman was replacing him...

 

[SV Fan]

I love how it seems the people most upset by this change are conservatives who love telling us how the Republicans ended slavery while Democrats are responsible for Jim Crow laws and the KKK. You think they would be happy that a self professed Republican is replacing the first Democrat President

 

[Hypestyle]

economic justice for Americans is vastly more important, but at "face value" (pun intended), fine.

 

[TheBat812]

There are so many parts to our country's history, why just reduce it to President's? And yes, diversity is a huge part of American culture, and rightly should be celebrated. I'm all for this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The difference between Jackson and Washington/Jefferson in regards to the slave issue is that Jackson was unashamed in his owning of slaves. Washington and Jefferson on the other hand were similar to Robert E. Lee, while they owned slaves, and were certainly racist, they weren't exactly fond of the institution of slavery and recognized the flaws involved with the system.

Also Jackson was an insane murderer who had no respect for constitutional limits and engaged in some of the worst treatment of Native Americans in our nation's history.

HH, I've studied Jackson extensively, and I feel you mischaracterize this man. Jackson was by most accounts a fairly benign slave owner. His slaves spoke highly of him even after emancipation. Granted, obviously slavery now seems abhorrent, but we do need to consider the times.

Secondly, he actually was fairly progressive when it came to Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act, though obviously horrible today, was at the time actually a compromise. The alternative - which happened in most states - was genocide.

Also George Washington did some pretty shady things when it came to slavery, like trying to get around anti-slavery laws, and chasing his slaves who fled.

But I digress.

 

[Chance Jackson]

The difference between Jackson and Washington/Jefferson in regards to the slave issue is that Jackson was unashamed in his owning of slaves. Washington and Jefferson on the other hand were similar to Robert E. Lee, while they owned slaves, and were certainly racist, they weren't exactly fond of the institution of slavery and recognized the flaws involved with the system.

Also Jackson was an insane murderer who had no respect for constitutional limits and engaged in some of the worst treatment of Native Americans in our nation's history.

I agree with all of this but I wanted to add that she not only freed slaves but she worked for the Union as a Spy during the Civil War

 

[WilliamK99]

I agree with all of this but I wanted to add that she not only freed slaves but she worked for the Union as a Spy during the Civil War

She was a gun loving Republican... I am glad we are changing our currency, one it helps combat counterfeiters and two our country has always evolved, why shouldn't our currency?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

At this point, I don't even care because I'm not even sure when I used cash to pay for something. I suspect most people these days use debit cards, credit cards or their smartphone to pay for most stuff these days.

 

[Kelly]

At this point, I don't even care because I'm not even sure when I used cash to pay for something. I suspect most people these days use debit cards, credit cards or their smartphone to pay for most stuff these days.

Very true....

 

[Kelly]

HH, I've studied Jackson extensively, and I feel you mischaracterize this man. Jackson was by most accounts a fairly benign slave owner. His slaves spoke highly of him even after emancipation. Granted, obviously slavery now seems abhorrent, but we do need to consider the times.

Secondly, he actually was fairly progressive when it came to Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act, though obviously horrible today, was at the time actually a compromise. The alternative - which happened in most states - was genocide.

Also George Washington did some pretty shady things when it came to slavery, like trying to get around anti-slavery laws, and chasing his slaves who fled.

But I digress.

Yeah, and that Indian Removal Act was such a fantastic piece of legislation to come out of his Presidency.....

 

[mclay18]

I'm curious why it's going to take until 2030 for the new $20 bill to come out. It should be 2020 or 2021 at the latest.

 

[Kelly]

I'm curious why it's going to take until 2030 for the new $20 bill to come out. It should be 2020 or 2021 at the latest.

It might possibly take that long for the bills already printed to do the allotted circulation....

 

[Webfoot Hero]

It might possibly take that long for the bills already printed to do the allotted circulation....

I think they also have to redo design and security features to counteract counterfeiters.

 

[Kelly]

I think they also have to redo design and security features to counteract counterfeiters.

Yep....and after visiting the Federal Reserve here in Houston, and getting the grand tour , all of that, getting it into circulation, re-training all of the people that work with the money in the Federal Reserves etc....will take a lot of time for sure.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

And then, as always, counterfeit bills will circulate within the first 90 days as usual.