Does Andrew Jackson deserve to be on the 20 $ bill?
Most people would not even think twice to judge somebody whose face is on money. Do you think AJ deserves to be on the 20? Even after what he did to Native Americans?
Yes
Side Score: 26
|
 |
No
Side Score: 32
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson, for all his failings, stood by his convictions. He did what he thought was right, regardless of how moral or ethical it might be. Most importantly (in my mind) he a) completely payed off the US debt, and b) was able to prevent the Civil War from occurring earlier. Side: yes
1
point
Ok first of all you saying he did what he though was right is like saying Hitler did what he though was right. It doesn’t make it any better, he can still do wrong things. And AJ May have paid off the US debt, but remember, when he shut down the National Bank, we went farther into dept. Side: Yes
2
points
Okkay.. lets forget about the trail of tears for a moment.. yeahh it was awful.. but heyy there were worse things in history.. Andrew Jackson was a HUGE impact on america.. before andrew jackson.. the views of the masses were of no importance.. our presidents were not chosen based on how well they represented on our views. they were instead based on who was the best at working behind closed doors securing a position. WITH NO SAY FROM THE PEOPLE!!!.. Jackson may have been quick tempered but he stood up for what he believed in no matter the consequences.. with the whole eaton ordeal.. he stood by his values even though everyone else was against him.. for this i am impressed with him.. during the war of 1812 he immediately signed himself up for war and refused to give up. and in the end won the Battle of New Orleans.. lets face it he was a popular war hero. Before jackson the presidents role in government was insignificant for the most part. the founding fathers held no stock in the presidency and now it is one of the most influential offices to hold in our world today.... before jackson the views of the president meant nothing to congress.. however.. due to his strong will and the understanding of the importance of his power to veto.. he forced congress to pay attention to his views... and now the ideas of the president are greatly respected by congress.. jackson aslo prevented the breaking of the union when south carolina threatend to scede from the nation... he even found a compromise that was acceptable by all.. sure he may have used brute force.. but this is the only way he understood.. and he used it well to his advantage.. soo while everything he may have done may not have been all that great.. he was an influential and imporant president who deserves to be recognized on the 20 dollar bill.. Side: yes
He is no worse than any of the other dead presidents who are on our money. George Washington was one of the few presidents who never went to college, had a terrible temper, was something of a cuckold in his youth, and was a slave owner who didn't treat his slaves particularly well. Thomas Jefferson had children out of wedlock by a female slave, inconsistently wanted to send all of the slaves back to Africa, and had a rather varied sex life involving many women. Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship all of the newly freed slaves back to Africa ("Emancipation followed by immediate deportation"), had no real education, and was very fond of dirty jokes. Alexander was born out of wedlock, grew up to be an adultery, and was finally killed in a duel (a pastime that he never approved of). Ulysses Grant was a drunkard. Benjamin Franklin was quite a playboy who left a rather large string of illegitimate children. With company like this, Andrew Jackson doesn't look out of place. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
1
point
In 1913 a greedy treasonous congress passed into law The Federal Reserve Act. It turned all gold and silver held by the United States over to a group of men who already owned The Bank of England and nearly every bank on Earth. The greedy congressmen got what they wanted too. They didn't have to lie their way around the American people for cash. Now all they had to do was ask the bank.The bank was more than happy to loan it, with interests though. This small group of men had the riches to have anything and everything life has to offer and never want. For reasons beyond a normal person's reasoning these men still craved. Taking a poor man's dream and destroying his family meant nothing to these men except enjoyment. These men behind closed doors wrote The Federal Reserve Act and then turned it over to Congress to finish this fraud on Americans. Henry Ford said if the American People had known what that bill had really done they would have marched on Washington and not waited for elections. Thomas Jefferson said he feared the bank more than a standing army. If hard times hit any country it is not by accident but an organized plan by the same descendants of the same men that started their quest of wealth or power or what ever these sick a-holes want over 200 years ago. These few greedy sick bastards are guilty of crimes worst than murder as they don't take life but destroy life. These warped few have funded both sides of every war since they pulled Napoleon off his island and loaned him the funds for a new army. They funded both Germany and England in WW2. American opinion in the 1930 sided with Germany but when the bank thought England was as about to lose the news media they owned changed American opinion. (and you thought Walter Cronkite was the first media lier) America was dragged into the war and was funded by guess who? The country of Brazil just defaulted on a loan. The bank now owns the whole rain forest and Brazil is still paying off the loan.Every dime you pay into taxes goes to these devils. Our dollar is not worth the paper it is printed on as nothing backs it up. Our Government prints a sheet of bills for the cost of $65.00. Be it 1's or 100's the ink and paper cost is the same. They then sell it to the bank for $65.00 who then turn around and loan it to the government at full face value plus interest. It's called counterfeiting. Every religion and every country are against interest. 250 years ago it was called usury and illegal. In the Bible it tells of Christ chasing the money lenders out of the temple. Andrew Jackson worked around the clock to throw the bank out of this country and in 1832 he did just that. On his death bed he was asked what was his greatest achievement in his life. he said I killed the bank. With the bank having to look at the man that beat them on a 20 dollar bill is a little pay back of a few men that are guilty of genocide and the most evil crimes against all humanity. Side: yes
1
point
0
points
Badbob got all the technical out there, so all i really have to say is this: whether you agreed with what he did or not, he is an extremely influential president who has basically changed the role of the President itself in government. for that alone, actually, he deserves to be on the 20 dollar bill. That's really how presidents get on money, how much they changed things. Side: yes
1
point
So by that logic you should throw Hitler on the Euro because he changed things in Europe. Change is only good if it's towards a positive or away from a negative. In this case I think sending thousands of Native Americans to their deaths on the trail of tears and defying the ruling of the supreme court in Cherokee nation v. Georgia, was not a positive change. Side: No
2
points
ahh but you see.. we cannot compare apples with oranges.. we are talking about american money and what happened in america.. not europe.. while understand the point you are trying to make.. while jackson no doubt was wrong in what he did to the native americans. however you say that jackson made no good changes.. when he infact did.. he gave average people a say in government.. he listened to what the people cared about long before any other politition felt the need to do so.. and he did his best to promote what they wished for during his presidency to the best extent he was capable of. sure he was no fan of native americans, a fact of which he was open about. he did not hide parts of himself from the people.. everyone was well aware of his views long before he was elected.. and his ruling of making the native americans move farther west was at the time greatly supported by his american followers... who all but tried to kick them out thereselves.. jackson simply finished up what had already been started.. Side: yes
|
I really do not see what he accomplished that makes him deserving of the 20. From what I know of AJ he committed a mass genocide of Native Americans. He was killing the Natives before he was in office. He burned Indian villages and Indian crops. His actions had an impact on Florida being ceded to the US and that is about it for being deserving of the 20. But wait are there not 49 other states? He was in a couple wars from rankings colonel to general. But again I do not believe that makes him deserving of the 20. Side: No
Jackson, for all his failings, stood by his convictions. He did what he thought was right, regardless of how moral or ethical it might be. Most importantly (in my mind) he a) completely payed off the US debt, and b) was able to prevent the Civil War from occurring earlier. He was a staunch Unionist who wasn't afraid to do what it took to keep the Union together for as long as it would stay together. The Seminole Wars, that I'm assuming you're referring to in your "genocide" claims, were a result of the Seminoles harboring runaway slaves and raiding American citizens. Jackson followed the Seminoles to Florida where he pursued a total victory not at all unlike what the United States pursued during World War II. Regardless of the morality of slavery at the time slavery was legal and Jackson was following orders in upholding the law; generals should never make policy, they follow the orders handed down by the civilian government, if that should ever change then the American Republic, like the Roman one before would be in danger of being overrun by a politically charged military. Do his actions first as the general who defeated the British at New Orleans, then later as the general who helped secure American borders by pursuing an enemy that was attacking the United States from the Spanish holding of Florida, then finally as the President who held the country together in a time of crisis, deserve to be on the twenty dollar bill? Perhaps, perhaps not. But to slander his name by claiming that he committed genocide is mind boggling. He did not ever pursue a policy of the total annihilation of a people based off of race. His decision to remove the Cherokee from their land is abhorrent, but it was not genocide. His policy toward the Seminoles was to prevent them from further attacking American citizens in Georgia; if that be genocide then FDR is just as guilty in his policy of bombing Germany to submission in WWII. Side: yes
2
points
How can you equate the plight of the native American with the war on Germany. The Germans were our enemies bent on destroying us, the natives had no such intentions. Settlers were killed because they intruded onto Cherokee land period! In fact all the land the whites inhabited at the time was taken by force from the natives. Anytime they discovered gold on Indian land, the natives had to be ousted. Genocide is genocide plain and simple and slavery whether legal or not is still a crime. And the Cherokee removal was NOT because they were attacking Americans, which was true but because they were attacking Americans coming onto Cherokee land to dig for gold. CX Morningdog Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas Side: No
2
points
2
points
2
points
I do not believe that Andrew Jackson deserves to be on the 20 dollar bill because he killed many native Americans on the trail of tears. Yes he did fight battles with the U.S. army but, he disobeyed the supreme court and the constitution because the supreme court gave the Cherokee the right to maintain the power of the land they were on. Even like this, Andrew Jackson relocated the Cherokee by the force to a land they did not know and they most likely they did not want because the land they were relocated to was badly treated with soil that was not fertile enough to grow that much crops ant the land that the used to have was very fertile and healthy and that land helped them survive. Side: No
1
point
I believe that Andrew Jackson does not deserve to be on the $20 bill because he did some things that were not right. One for example was forcing the Cherokee Indian tribe to move out of their land. The Cherokee had won their court case, which would see them staying in their land. Jackson however did not like did, and so he violated the constitution by kicking them out either way. I do no think that someone who violates the constitution deserves to be on a bill. Side: No
1
point
Besides getting land for white settlers, which was from native Americans that worked very hard to get it the way it was, Andrew Jackson did not accomplish much after or before that besides being called a savage and a bar fighter. All he really did was look up a fight whenever he could. For this and many reasons, Andrew Jackson does not belong on the twenty dollar bill. Side: No
1
point
I really don't think that he should be on the twenty dollar bill. Even though he did a couple of good things he still did something that was very wrong. He disobeyed the Supreme Court and did what he wanted to do. He removed the Cherokee from their own land and took over. After that they sent them away to a different territory. When they were sent off they were not even given some of the basic needs to survive winter. The only reason that he wanted them to move out was because white settlers wanted to move into it. He did not care what would happen to the Indians after they were moved from their land. Side: No
1
point
Jackson didn't agree with the idea of paper currency and mistrusted banks. And also "because Jackson was a fierce opponent of the central banking system and favored gold and silver coins or 'hard money' over paper currency, he is an ironic choice for immortalization on our money." As the women on the 20's website state. He shouldn't be on the 20 dollar bill if he treated Africans in such a way as to make them leave. He owned over 150 slaves and sparked a war when trying to return slaves to their "owners". I can't even find a liable reason why he became our 7th president in the first place. Side: No
|
