Why Remove Hamilton Instead of Jackson?

Apparently, it is Hamilton that will get the ax on the $10 bill rather than Jackson on the $20 in order to make way for some fresh historical faces.  I am not the biggest Hamilton supporter in the world, and he was never a President, but he had as much to do with the form our Constitution takes today as any man in history.  On the other hand, for whatever points Jackson might make with me by opposing the Bank of the United States, he was really a horrible person.  His attitude about blacks and his treatment of slaves represented the worst of the slave-holding South, his his ruthless role in wiping out of the Cherokee nation is beyond criminal.

To this day, I don't know how the conflict between nomadic Native Americans and European settlers looking to build towns and farms could ever have had a happy ending.  But the one exception to this was the Cherokee, who settled down in communities in Georgia that in most ways mirrored European communities in the rest of the early United States.  If there are any native americans we should have been able to integrate into American society, it was the Cherokee.   And we wiped them out.  Awful.  I would rather the $20 bill be blank than have that genocidal maniac on it.

PS- would love to see someone like Harriet Tubman on the money, or really anyone else whose contribution did not consist merely of exercising power over me.  Hell, put Steve Jobs on there -- the iPad, and the Apple II before it, have improved my happiness more than any politician.

  • http://occamsrazr.com Ike Pigott

    So, who goes on the $10?

    Harriet Tubman?
    Rachel Dolezal?
    Caitlyn Jenner?
    Margaret Sanger?

    If it isn't Grace Hopper, then there's something wrong with the world. Maybe we should do it like the Coke bottles, and put everyone on there. Or use foil, like when Time's Person of the Year was your favorite narcissist in the mirror.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    "And we wiped them out."

    We? Speak for yourself. I had nothing to do with it.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy
  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Caitlyn's Hotter than a 10 Bill!

  • J K Brown

    I've been reading Don Surber's Exceptional Americans. I nominate Sarah Breedlove. first woman millionaire. Also, she didn't need minority or women government set asides.

    http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/05/madam-cj-walker-first-woman-millionaire.html

  • herdgadfly

    So Breitbart disagrees with Warren about Jackson wiping out the Cherokees.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/14/keep-andrew-jackson-on-the-20-bill/

  • HenryBowman419

    As I recall, Andrew Jackson, when asked what he thought his greatest achievement was, said that destroying the Creek (Muskogee) nation was his finest hour (this was years before the Cherokee "problem"). The Creeks were on the warpath, though, in contrast to the Cherokee.

  • kidmugsy

    Gerty Radnitz Cori (Physiology or Medicine, 1947) Gerty Cori was the first American woman to win a Nobel Prize in science. She studied enzymes and hormones, and her work brought researchers closer to understanding diabetes. She won the Nobel Prize for discovering the enzymes that convert glycogen into sugar and back again to glycogen.

  • Mercury

    A well-intended, heavily funded, government program that was cruelly and corruptly implemented once the original designers exited the stage? Say it isn't so!

    Yes, that Breitbart article sounds more in-line with what I've learned/concluded about that chapter of history over the years and more importantly there are plenty of primary sources and supporting documentation referenced for the reader to chase down and/or contest. BTW - sounds like the Cherokees were pretty hostile to the idea of assimilating freed blacks too (10yrd penalty!) - surprising actually as that was certainly not the case in many other tribes/regions.

    "genocidal maniac" might be a bit much Warren. Jackson had a long, involved history with the Indians which can hardly be summed up by such terms. Imagine a Nazi adopting a Jewish son and trying to get him into the national military academy.

    I do agree that it was (sadly) more or less impossible that the co-existence of stone-age "nomadic Native Americans and [increasingly mechanized] European settlers looking to build towns and farms could ever have had a happy ending". I'm not as familiar with other, Native-American cultures but I do love the Northeast Woodland Indians. Their comprehensive survival skills (and all -around "outdoorsmanship") are/were unbelievably impressive to anyone who has had to intimately deal with the often harsh climate and environment in that part of the country. Plus, they were complete and total bad-asses.
    On the other hand the "savage" side of their culture is hard to explain away, anthropologically or otherwise. Yes the Europeans did all kinds of nasty things to other peoples and each other too but the way the NE Indians fetishized the torture (sometimes a family activity) of enemies and rival tribe members is enough to make your skin crawl and in that context at least it's easy to understand how many Europeans couldn't empathize with them.

  • Daublin

    Very interesting read.

    People have over-simplified the American civil war as being about slavery, but here's an example of the federal government being completely overbearing with respect to the people actually living in Georgia. This was in the 1830s, and apparently they had been overbearing and ham-handed for decades. It must have been infuriating to the people actually living in Georgia, possibly even including the Cherokee that the Union was "helping".

    On the larger issues, I confess I don't see why simply nationalizing Cherokee into both Georgia and the United States was such an inconsiderable option. This is a pattern that repeats in history: a heavy-handed government takes control of something it doesn't really know how to govern, and the tensions rise and rise until bullets end up flying. If you look at the larger context, I don't think at all that Jackson was compelled to continue the heavy-handed approaches of his predecessors. Certainly it didn't work out very well.

  • morgan.c.frank

    look, it's time we just admit who we are and put kim kardashian on the $20.

    hell, let's sell the spot to the highest bidder.

    jay-z will look awesome on the $100.

  • Daublin

    Reading further, I see that the Cherokee refused. At least according to the article, nationalization was offered, and many Cherokee accepted that option. The ones that did not, however, had to move to a reservation further west.

    So there was stubborness on all sides. I don't see how the Cherokee Nation could really have believed it could remain autonomous while being geographically in the middle of Georgia as well as the USA. Then again, apprantly they had lots of British propaganda, weedling, and funding supporting this notion.

    I can't help but notice that every major government involved in this was stupid and heavy handed, and put their citizens at risk--in fact, risks that led to actual bloodshed and death.

  • bigmaq1980

    @Warren - "If there are any native americans we should have been able to integrate into American society, it was the Cherokee. And we wiped them out."

    This is where people get into trouble and feed the left's narrative. The framing of this as "we".

    There is an implicit personal guilt that comes with that framing, but "we", who live today, don't have ownership for the decisions and actions of those individuals from long ago.

    As to the point that there are people who better represent the values of America - agree.

    Given Jackson's shortcomings, it should be easy to find better. The challenge, if this continues beyond a handful of individuals, is in it becoming a series like Time's Person of the Year, or Nobel Peace Prize (who gave Obama a prospective award!), which have become increasingly "politically correct".

  • J K Brown

    An aside, I found interesting, in his memoirs, published in 1875, Gen. William T. Sherman related his early assignment as an Army officer to Florida (1840-45) to round up Seminoles for transport to the "Indian Territory". He opined on the fecundity of Florida in supporting the indians and whether it might have been better had the Cherokee and other tribes been relocated there.

    Of course, we know, that around 1920, an Indian territory of Florida would still have run into others wanting to use that land as happened in Oklahoma in the late 1800s.

  • Vangel

    ...but he had as much to do with the form our Constitution takes today as any man in history.

    This is not true. Hamilton left for a month while the Constitution was debated. When he came back he had no vote because they other New York delegates had left. He was not happy with the document because he wanted much more power for the President and the Federal Government. He wanted a president for life. He wanted high tariffs, a national debt, and a central bank. He was opposed to the Constitution as written but signed it and fought for it by writing some of the commentaries that have now been found in the Federalist Papers.

    Tom Dilorenzo makes the case against Hamilton here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCeqbkCDQ80

    Kevin Gutzman makes a few other points here.

    http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-411-hillsdale-colleges-federalist-papers-course-error-and-propaganda/

  • Vangel

    Does it really matter? The way things are going The Federal Reserve Note will soon go the way of the Zimbabwe Dollar.

    http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/files/2011/08/image002.jpg

  • obloodyhell

    }}}} Time's Person of the Year

    I don't think Hitler or Stalin have any business on US bills of any denominations...

  • W. S. Byrd

    Which is of course worthless because that era of crazed capitalist speculation is over . . . mostly.

  • W. S. Byrd

    As always, you seek out the most idiotic, crazed numbskull you can find. Tom Dilorenzo thinks that slavery had nothing to do with the start of the Civil War. Of course, we have the real causes of the war in the treasonous secessionist race slavers own words. Anything this nut says is worth about as much as the venom you spread. Nothing.

  • Vangel

    As usual my trolling friend you are mistaken. Capitalism has nothing to do with giving a monopoly on money creation to a central bank. Real capitalism is about competition in free markets. The US is heading the way of Zimbabwe for the same reason and that ain't capitalism.

  • Vangel

    Lincoln agreed that the war was not about slavery as did the people in his cabinet. That is clear because they all supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which is why so many abolitionists were opposed to Lincoln.

    The war was about preserving the union, not slavery. Lincoln was not exactly fond of black people. He was a follower of slave-owning Henry Clay, the President of the American Colonization Society who wanted to deport blacks so that the United States could stay for white people. Lincoln supported schemes to send blacks to Haiti and Panama. He invited black leaders to the White House so that he could gain their support for a resettlement scheme. And we know that he was still hoping for resettlement up until he was killed.

    Colonization after Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement explores the previously unknown truth about Lincoln’s attitude toward colonization. Scholars Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page combed through extensive archival materials, finding evidence, particularly within British Colonial and Foreign Office documents, which exposes what history has neglected to reveal—that Lincoln continued to pursue colonization for close to a year after emancipation. Their research even shows that Lincoln may have been attempting to revive this policy at the time of his assassination.

    Using long-forgotten records scattered across three continents—many of them untouched since the Civil War—the authors show that Lincoln continued his search for a freedmen’s colony much longer than previously thought. Colonization after Emancipation reveals Lincoln’s highly secretive negotiations with the British government to find suitable lands for colonization in the West Indies and depicts how the U.S. government worked with British agents and leaders in the free black community to recruit emigrants for the proposed colonies. The book shows that the scheme was never very popular within Lincoln’s administration and even became a subject of subversion when the president’s subordinates began battling for control over a lucrative “colonization fund” established by Congress.

    Colonization after Emancipation reveals an unexplored chapter of the emancipation story. A valuable contribution to Lincoln studies and Civil War history, this book unearths the facts about an ill-fated project and illuminates just how complex, and even convoluted, Abraham Lincoln’s ideas about the end of slavery really were.

    http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098

    There are also other authors who have provided plenty of evidence to support DiLorenzo.

    http://www.amazon.com/When-Course-Human-Events-Secession/dp/0847697223/ref=pd_sim_14_12?ie=UTF8&refRID=02ZTX00435H098XCGKYE

    http://www.amazon.com/Emancipating-Slaves-Enslaving-Free-Men/dp/0812693124/ref=pd_sim_14_18?ie=UTF8&refRID=02ZTX00435H098XCGKYE

    http://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850851/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434926968&sr=1-1&keywords=lerone+bennett+jr

  • W. S. Byrd

    As usual my ignorant trolling condescending friend of no-one. Capitalism has <b.everything to do with central banks. They are the ones that want them. Without capitalists, we would not have the speculation that drives that inflation. Natural inflation can only happen in a severe shortage of goods. Even then, it would be limited. Speculation drives most inflation. American capitalism's buying of an entire political party, and half of another, and a large portion of our courts, is driving our economic destruction. It has already largely destroyed our Democracy. The blind evil of robbing those that actually create, by those like you that offer nearly nothing in return, is killing the U.S. AND by dear condescending, ignorant, lying friend of no-one, IF that AIN'T capitalism, then it is just plain strong arm robbery.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Actually, as always, you just use the most outrageous revisionist history to "support" your lies. I will not argue this point with a liar. The keys to your lies are right in your own so-called sources. As well, you go off on an exercise in idiotic madness with the entirely off-topic "colonic irrigation after constipation" routine. Yeah, and the outcome of that would be what your ideas lead to.

    Research, real research, has never found much of any of your ideas to be true. This one included.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Unlike myself, you never address what is said in a post in opposition to you. You go off on a tangent. Usually off-topic, and often laughably silly.

    For instance, we KNOW in the traitors own words, that they were fighting largely to defend chattel slavery of the African race. YES, that specific. Their irrational, immoral cry was that the Southern economy could not survive without it. You might read some of Frederick Law Olmsted's writings about his travels in the South. Briefly, and this was admitted by a number of Southern plantation owners, slavery and the crops dependent on it, were bankrupting the South. You look up the public domain references. Oh yeah, you are a good Rethug. You are allergic to truth.

  • Ann_In_Illinois

    You're saying that Zimbabwe's problems are because of capitalism? The government arbitrarily setting prices, taking land to give to someone else, taking control of companies, is your idea of a free market? What Mugabe did to that beautiful, prosperous country was to impose communist/socialist destruction.

    Next you'll try to claim that Chavez's '21st century socialism', which simply followed the Zimbabwe playbook, was also an example of free markets rather than government micromanagement.

  • W. S. Byrd

    I realize that capitalist propaganda makes it impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you, but what I said is obviously what I said. Like I said, shortages of goods will cause an inflation, but only speculation will lead to it running away. Now don't misunderstand, capitalists don't won't a runaway condition of inflation, but they usually expect that "we the people" will pay for the fix.

    As for free markets, you people have got to be kidding. There are no free markets and never will be as long as we have capitalists. Capitalists don't want anything to do with any aspect of freedom, except their own. They want exclusivity. Regardless of our disagreement on the first point, no one with any sense can dispute this one.

    Next, your lame attempt at a slur is just that. But, maybe Chavez knew more than you think. You want to be able to do exactly what you want to make large sums of money at the expense of the real creators, while you do almost nothing in return.

    ---

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    Unfortunately he seems to sum up our society's traits pretty well.

  • Joe

    Dilorenzo will probably go to his grave referring to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression". Anyone that deluded should be ignored. The Declarations of Secession issued by the Confederate states themselves make very clear that the south's objective was to protect slavery from what they perceived (probably correctly) to be a growing hostility to the institution in the north, whose political strength in the federal government was growing substantially in relation to the south's.

  • Vangel

    Capitalism has everything to do with central banks. They are the ones that want them. Without capitalists, we would not have the speculation that drives that inflation.

    Central banks are a creation of government. End of story. Communist and capitalists governments both create central banks because they allow the growth of government through inflation rather than outright taxation.

  • Vangel

    Mr. Byrd is a troll who looks for my postings so that he can respond to them. He is a socialist who hates rich people even though he supported the bailouts. He is not the brightest light on the porch and prefers a faith-based position to reason and logic.

  • Sparafucile

    It's high time to put the Lady who's graced more of our coinage than any other, back on coins and currency.

  • Sparafucile

    Better than Trump?

  • Sparafucile

    +1 for "fecundity".

  • Vangel

    I use facts that you just happen to be ignorant of. It is well known that Lincoln thought of blacks as inferior and wanted to deport them. He opposed slavery because he wanted to protect jobs for white people and thought that blacks were not fit to live among us. Magness and Page found archival evidence that showed that Lincoln had not given up on his resettlement dream even though many rational people in his cabinet soured on the idea. You have been provided with plenty of references in the past. Try reading them.

  • Sparafucile

    Or The Computer.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Thanks Joe. I think you expressed this much better than I did. The shame is all those that just want to be contrary. The South had slavery, and as a general concept, slavery is against all that this country supposedly valued. Slavery is evil and the South was endeared to and dependent on slavery. Yet, as you have said, they plainly stated slavery was largely the cause of their secession. Regardless of what they fed the rank and file Southerners, the elite's heart and soul, and their daily bred, was begotten through slavery.

    One point though, if you watch the abusive troll named Vangel, you will notice that he takes the most abusive, obnoxious stances possible. He claims to be an anarchist. Though he is abusive to the "left" 90% of the time, he works hard to tick off the right as well. If you have an idea, you can bet Vangel will be against it. Unless, it is about freeing up some money for Vangel. The real funny part, well, it is not really funny, if he got what he says he wants, then he probably would die at the hands of some p*ssed off mob of starving proles.

  • W. S. Byrd

    The difference between what you say and what I say is simply that I tell the truth, and you don't. This is by design, I might add.

    AND, I am not the one that goes to blogs and picks out strangers to argue with until they are driven away.

    AND, I am not the goon that bases everything on personal faith in greed, as you do. I on the other hand, have almost no faith of any kind. That is why I put what little faith I have in fact and logic. Which, you only misuse as slogans to justify your blinding, self-serving greed.

    AND, and especially this, I AM NOT the piece of filth that restarts arguments that I have lost, THREE MONTHS after they ended. AND, you keep doing it. I am only here because you had HOW MANY chances to leave me alone? You won't because you are a sociopath that is driven by idiocy and madness.

    Being called not very bright by you, is an endorsement of intelligence.

  • W. S. Byrd

    I am not ignorant of any facts. By definition the "facts" you relate are not facts at all, but lies and falsehoods.

    What you say is well known is mere speculation. Mostly used by even more evil right-wing forces to blemish the reputation of a better man than they. No one is perfect, but why do you have to denigrate one of the greatest men to have lived? Regardless of the truth, you MUST. We both know why!

  • W. S. Byrd

    If that were true, then the U.S. would not have a central bank because of the very actions of the man on THAT twenty dollar bill.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Capitalism has everything to do with central banks. They are the ones
    that want them. Without capitalists, we would not have the speculation
    that drives that inflation.

  • markm

    Harriet Tubman - holding a revolver.

  • Vangel

    Sorry my collectivist friend but the central banks are a creation of government and have nothing to do with free market capitalism. You also seem confused because you were the one who was supporting the bailouts of the big banks and favoured the banks over workers and savers.

  • Vangel

    Ayn Rand with a cigarette. Sitting at the foot of Isabel Paterson.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Well, you keep your unbroken string of lies intact. What is this one, the 5326th consecutive?

    There has been dealt with several different times, several different ways. If you cannot do any better, may I suggest to my dear condescending, ignorant friend of no one, that he move on.

  • W. S. Byrd

    Your hero smoked herself to death. . . .

  • Vangel

    What part is a lie again? The Federal Reserve was created by, The Federal Reserve Act, which was enacted at the end of 1913 and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson. It gave the Fed the monopoly right to issue Federal Reserve Notes and made those notes legal tender. In a free market capitalist system there would be no monopoly on the creation of money and no legal tender laws. As I have pointed out, central banks have nothing to do with capitalism. They are creatures of govdernment that deal with power and control.

  • Vangel

    Who said that she is my hero?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8

  • W. S. Byrd

    Since you probably have the same origins, she might even be your sister. In any case, you both are mirror-images of each other. So, don't bother trying to blow that lie past me. You believe as she did. Which is not good in my book.

  • W. S. Byrd

    You did not say anything that budges me from the truth. You can't even tell a straight up story without a slant, or lie.

    Using Rothbard shows a completer lack of intelligence and common-sense. You pick a libertardian econonut of the "Austrian School" that sees things exactly like you do. And, he revises history as much as you do. So, what does that prove? Besides there is more than one dangerous nutjob running around. Why don't you quote me some Gailbraith that supports your position?

    Why do you only quote the extremists? Quote somebody that is mainstream who's theories actually can be understood and examined.

  • W. S. Byrd

    What? No weather lies yet today?

  • W. S. Byrd

    When you were left in complete peace for days, weeks, or even months, you re-start old worn-out discussions that you know won't go anywhere. This has happened at least half a dozen times with just me. The one difference is, when a topic is re-started, I have a zero tolerance policy with liars. Nothing you say is any different. Often, you obviously have never read the article or your opponents views. You seem to need someone to attack and disagree with. Yet, as I have said, I have a zero tolerance policy. So, I am not a good candidate for your nonsense.

    Mr. Troll, if I show you my profile, will you be surprised that you are the only one in it?