Harriet Tubman to Replace Andrew Jackson on $20 Bill

[Nuvendil]

nuckles87 said:

Nuvendil said:

Probably had to do with him being a war hero as well as some of the good things he did as president like completely get the country out of debt.  Not saying he was an excellent president, but he was a fair bit better than the majority.  But removing him cause he owned slaves is a pathetic excuse.  George Wachington owned over a hundred.  I'm not all that miffed, I just find it silly and a waste of government time and resources.  

                               

   People wanted him removed because he authorized the Indian Removal Act, which forced entire nations of Native Americans to abandon their homes for lands west of the Mississippi river. This policy would eventually lead to the Trail of Tears, which saw thousands of native americans to die in what was effectively a forced death march. Jackson did some good things too, but pretty much the only person less qualified to be on our money is Ulysses S. Grant, who was a mediocre general and an embarassing president.

Also, the $20 was being redesigned anyway. It's a typical anti-piracy measure. The $5 and $10 bills are also slated for redesigns.

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.