Does anyone else have an issue with Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill?

Question

This man is respondible for the deaths of 10 of thousands of Native Americans through The Trail of Tears, "relocating" them to an enviorment with no food or water and practically no resources. Not to mention there were camps that they were kept in that were riddled with disease and freezing tempertures. It makes me sick to see him representing America on the 20 dollar bill. Does anyone else feel this way?

Answer 1

didn't know that. i know how you can feel that way. and i agree

Answer 2

No issue here, but if you do not like his pic on the $20, then send it to me.

Answer 3

No prob here

Answer 4

I personally would rather see Malcolm X on the 20 dollar bill

Answer 5

He is the first real Democrate to get elected President.  He is there hero, he will never come off the 20.

Answer 6

Only issue I have with it. I don't have enough of those $20 bills. If you really believe what your saying send me all your $20 bills.

Answer 7

Nope.  It was a different time then now, had they had weak people like we do today running our great nation would have never been formed.  Tell me who would you put on the 20.00?  Clinton or Gore

Answer 8

Sorta...I've always had a beef with James K Polk myself.  I think the best way to deal with these matters is to view them as symbols and not actual people...the same way Columbus is the symbol for explorer.  I understand your view, and I think it's valid.  I also don't think you're unpatriotic for feeling that way.  I would, however, recommend that you pick your battles.  Affect the history that's being made today instead of trying to change everyone's ingrained view of what has already occurred.  But to each their own.

Answer 9

He shouldn't be on any Federal Reserve Notes (the official name for the paper money you carry) because he hated the idea of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve probably put him on a FRN, just to take a cheap shot at him.

Answer 10

yeah, he still owes me  $5

Answer 11

No. History is what it is. It is foolish to try to judge events decades or centuries ago by the moral sensibilities some hold today.

Answer 12

yes!

Answer 13

I totally understand what your saying...I think you would enjoy reading Flyboys, it really opened my eyes to a lot and for the first time in my life, I actually was ashamed to be white. I am not so ashamed because I reaqlize that a lot of those decisions were made my pompous, rude, arrogant white men. A lot like those ppl writing stupid comments on here except they are most likely still boys.  I agree with your suggestion and think there should be a lot of other changes made. What I dont understand is how when I was in first grade I was taught about Columbus discovering America...I dont know what there teaching children now but I still think odd that I had to completely relearn history when I got to high school.

Oh and another thing, in some instances those native americans were moved again after they had been placed in "reservations" because it was discovered that the land they were on had gold or oil or natural resources that were desired...Barbara Kingsolver writes about this kind of stuff a lot in her novels.

Answer 14

Why stop there? Let's remove all presidents, and all people, from our money...afterall, many of the early presidents owned slaves.  I'm sure that every single president could be blamed for atrocities against one group of people or another.

But, hey, it's about time Ronald Reagan got his portrait on some of our money...so let's put him on the $20 bill instead.  And, yes, I hope that suggestion shocks you.

And kudos to Big Jon for giving you a history lesson.

Answer 15

It may have been despicable by today's standards, but conditions and attitudes were far different in the early 1800s than they are today.  

Andrew Jackson is also considered a great American hero because of his actions during the War of 1812, with his defense of the City of New Orleans being the highlight of that campaign.

History cannot be rewritten for the "feelings" of a few, and besides, Andrew Jackson was not completely responsible for the removal of the Cherokees.  That must be shared by the U. S. Senate.  Here is a brief history of the treaty that allowed the move to take place.  More info at the source.

By 1835 the Cherokee were divided and despondent. Most supported Principal Chief John Ross, who fought the encroachment of whites starting with the 1832 land lottery. However, a minority (less than 500 out of 17,000 Cherokee in North Georgia) followed Major Ridge, his son John, and Elias Boudinot, who advocated removal. The Treaty of New Echota, signed by Ridge and members of the Treaty Party in 1835, gave Jackson the legal document he needed to remove the First Americans. Ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate sealed the fate of the Cherokee. Among the few who spoke out against the ratification were Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, but it passed by a single vote. In 1838 the United States began the removal to Oklahoma, fulfilling a promise the government made to Georgia in 1802. Ordered to move on the Cherokee, General John Wool resigned his command in protest, delaying the action. His replacement, General Winfield Scott, arrived at New Echota on May 17, 1838 with 7000 men. Early that summer General Scott and the United States Army began the invasion of the Cherokee Nation.