Should Andrew Jackson be on the $20 Bill

Introduction

The visage of Andrew Jackson has graced the United States $20 bill since 1928, a decision that invites scrutiny and debate as societal values evolve. Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, is a polarizing figure in American history, known for his populist approach and controversial policies. While some view Jackson as a symbol of the common man's ascent to power, others criticize his legacy, particularly his role in the forced relocation of Native American tribes, known as the Trail of Tears.

As discussions about representation and historical acknowledgment intensify, the question arises: should Andrew Jackson continue to be featured on the $20 bill? This essay examines the arguments for and against Jackson's continued presence on the currency, considering historical context, moral implications, and contemporary values.

Historical Context and Jackson's Legacy

Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829-1837) was marked by significant events that shaped the nascent United States. A war hero from the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson was celebrated for his military prowess and was perceived as a defender of the nation. His presidency was characterized by a commitment to the notion of popular democracy and the dismantling of what he saw as elitist institutions, exemplified by his battle against the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson's image as a man of the people was cemented by his advocacy for the "common man," a stark departure from his predecessors who were largely from elite backgrounds.

However, Jackson's legacy is marred by policies that had devastating consequences for Native American populations. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the forced displacement of thousands of Native Americans, resulting in the Trail of Tears, where thousands perished. This aspect of Jackson's presidency is often cited by critics who argue that his actions were not only inhumane but also antithetical to the values of liberty and justice that the United States purports to uphold. Historian Robert V. Remini notes, “Jackson's Indian policy was cruel in its execution and catastrophic in its effects,” underscoring the moral quandary of honoring Jackson on a currency note.

Moral and Ethical Considerations

In assessing whether Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill, moral and ethical considerations are paramount. The currency, as a symbol of national values, should reflect the ideals and principles that society seeks to promote. Jackson's involvement in the systemic oppression and displacement of Native Americans raises questions about the suitability of his representation on such a prominent national symbol. Critics argue that honoring Jackson on the $20 bill perpetuates a legacy of injustice and fails to acknowledge the full scope of his actions.

Proponents of removing Jackson from the bill suggest that his place could be taken by figures who embody more inclusive and progressive values. The proposal to feature Harriet Tubman, a former slave and abolitionist, is one such alternative that has gained traction. Tubman's life and work represent resilience, courage, and a commitment to liberty and justice for all—a stark contrast to Jackson's controversial legacy. This shift would not only serve as a corrective measure but also reflect a broader societal commitment to recognizing diverse contributions to American history.

Counterarguments and Defense of Jackson's Place

Supporters of Jackson's continued presence on the $20 bill argue that his contributions to American democracy and his role as a war hero are significant aspects of his legacy. They contend that Jackson's efforts to dismantle the centralized banking system laid the groundwork for a more egalitarian economic landscape. Furthermore, his tenure marked an era of heightened political engagement among the American populace, with his presidency fostering a spirit of participatory democracy.

Some historians, such as Jon Meacham, argue that while Jackson's policies were deeply flawed, they must be understood within the context of the 19th century, a time when expansionist policies were widely accepted. Meacham asserts, “To condemn Jackson without recognizing the norms of his era risks distorting historical understanding.” This perspective suggests that removing Jackson from the $20 bill might oversimplify the complex historical realities of his time, neglecting to consider the broader context of his actions.

Conclusion

The debate over Andrew Jackson's place on the $20 bill reflects broader societal discussions about historical memory and representation. While Jackson's contributions to American political life are undeniable, his legacy is indelibly linked to policies that caused immense suffering. As such, the decision to keep or replace his image on the currency is not merely a matter of historical record but also an ethical question about the values the nation chooses to honor. Replacing Jackson with a figure like Harriet Tubman would not erase history but rather broaden the narrative to include diverse voices and experiences. Such a change would signal a commitment to justice and inclusivity, aligning the currency with contemporary values that resonate with a wider segment of society.

Did you like this example?

282

12