intresting

I am well aware of Jackson's history.  I didn't say there weren't possible good reasons, but slavery wasn't one of them.  And he did perform heroically in the confrontation with Britain in Louisiana.  There are far more ineffectual presidents.  Like William Henry Harrison, who died officially of pneumonia and unofficially of plain old stupidity.  Or James Buchanan, who not only failed to maintain stability between the North and South but managed to dissolve all useful efforts made by past Presidents to keep the Union together.  

Ulyses S Grant...eh.  Neither here nor there, just a stable face for a country in recovery who got some things right and got some things wrong.  Didn't do any great but hardly a terrible president.  And his efforts as a general are often glossed over due to the frankly inflated abilities of his rival Robert E Lee (excellent field commander, not so excellent at long term campaigns and logistics) (and exaggerated stories that painted him as a drunken lug).  At least as president he was better than Andrew Johnson who not only opposed things like former slave citizenship but proceeded to let the entire reconstruction situation go to crap.  He did make serious efforts for African American rights, economic growth, and and Indian peace.  They didn't all succeed - most notoriously the economic policies - but that's a heck of a lot better than the likes of Buchanan and Johnson who did nothing or worse than nothing.

The point I was making was that slavery wasn't really the reason. He was specifically targeted by groups who wanted a woman on the $20 because of his role in the Trails of Tears, not because of slave ownership.

I would guess the article called Jackson a slaveholder to easily draw a stark comparison between her and Jackson, but I've not heard anyone who's actually been trying to get this done for the past year cite it.

Well this has been going on for longer than a year really, Indians have been upset over it for a long time.  Many Indian tribes won't take $20 bills.  But what I don't get is why they went with Tubman as opposed to Martin Luther King Jr, the face and leader of the best of the Civil Rights Movement.  But then, like I already said, I overall find this a silly waste of time and effort that could be more productively applied for elsewhere.

This is bullshit

...I was referring to this: http://www.womenon20s.org/

This is a group that wanted a woman on money. They chose the 20 because:

"1. Andrew Jackson was celebrated for his military prowess, for founding the Democratic party and for his simpatico with the common man. But as the seventh president of the United States, he also helped gain Congressional passage of the "Indian Removal Act of 1830" that drove Native American tribes of the Southeastern United States off their resource-rich land and into Oklahoma to make room for white European settlers. Commonly known as the Trail of Tears, the mass relocation of Indians resulted in the deaths of thousands from exposure, disease and starvation during the westward migration. Not okay.

2. Some argue that because Jackson was a fierce opponent of the central banking system and favored gold and silver coin or "hard money" over paper currency, he is an ironic choice for immortalization on our money."

FYI, that website also answers any other questions you might have about this, including why they decided to push Tubman.

And it's not a silly waste of time. The bill was going to be redesigned ANYWAY, as part of an anti-piracy measure. That's the only reason why this is even happening. All of our bills go through redesigns to make them more difficult to pirate. That part of the process is far more time consuming than deciding whose portrait adorns it.

No Paypal either?

Its the action going about it. Im all for HT being on idoilized and put on money. However the reasoning beind iit is just stupid. If not HT id like to see Rosa Parks. 

Thread title is misleading, he's not being taken off the $20, he's being put on the back of the $20.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/20/treasury_says_andrew_jackson_going_to_back_of_20_bill_not_getting_kicked.html