quote:

Put Tubman on bill, but don't berate Jackson
By Harold Jackson

I could be related to Andrew Jackson; that is if any of his relatives owned slaves in Alabama who might have been among my ancestors. But that’s not why I feel the need to defend “Old Hickory” in the wake of an onslaught of derisive commentary offered by proponents of a proposal to put a woman’s image on a higher denomination of U.S. currency.

Before going any further, let me assure you that I agree that a woman should be so honored. My personal preference would be abolitionist Harriet Tubman. However, I take exception to attacks on Jackson by those who believe his image on the $20 bill is the most dispensable. One proposal is to replace Alexander Hamilton’s image on the $10 bill. But some critics say that denomination is too low, and that Hamilton, the nation’s first treasurer, should be on its money.

Many of these bigger-bill seekers also suggest that Jackson never should have been on the $20 bill in the first place. Some note that Jackson wasn’t a proponent of paper money. Others point out that, as president, Jackson authorized the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. But Jackson was hardly alone in believing gold and silver should be our young country’s legal tender; some people still believe that today. Nor was Jackson the only president guilty of mistreatment of Native Americans; but if that should disqualify a person from having his image on currency, what about the slaveholders on our money?

The point is every person whose face is on a denomination of U.S. currency had faults that could be used to denigrate him. George Washington owned slaves while he was president. Benjamin Franklin’s affairs as ambassador to France weren’t limited to the political variety. Thomas Jefferson committed adultery with a slave. Hamilton was a hothead who got himself killed in a duel with Vice President Aaron Burr. Abraham Lincoln didn’t want to free the slaves when he was elected president. Ulysses Grant’s disinterest in the South after the Civil War opened the door to lynching and other racial intimidation.

A good case could be made for a woman to replace any of these men on their respective bills. But that doesn’t mean they never deserved to be on our money. Each was chosen for good reason. So was Jackson. What he did to preserve the Union 30 years prior to Lincoln’s presidency should never be forgotten, but the vastness of the Civil War has unfortunately relegated it to a footnote.

In 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun argued vehemently in support of a law passed by his home state, South Carolina (yes, South Carolina again), which said it had a constitutional right to “nullify” any congressional act it didn’t like. The law included a provision for South Carolina to secede from the Union if it didn’t get its way. Jackson, who as a general won the Battle of New Orleans to culminate the War of 1812, fought the secessionists with brilliant rhetoric. In summation, he noted that while America was an amalgamation of many states, it was one people with one government.

Knowing the limitations of a good argument, Jackson then got Congress to pass the Force Act, which gave the president authority to employ state militia and federal troops to crush any rebellion. South Carolina subsequently backed down and repealed its nullification law. That battle was over tariffs, but Jackson predicted that the looming fight over slavery would be the true test of the Union’s strength.

Jackson overcame childhood poverty; at age 13, he fought in the Revolutionary War; and in the second British war, he became a military hero. A better president than most, Jackson was a populist credited with opening the White House to common folk, and, with Jefferson, is considered one of the founders of the Democratic Party. If Jackson loses his place on the $20 bill, so be it; but let no one say he never deserved to be on it.

Harold Jackson is editorial page editor for The Inquirer.