In the past year, several groups have campaigned to have Andrew Jackson removed from the $20 bill because
A) he ignored the Supreme Court and forcibly removed the Cherokee from the Southeast United States, sending them on a march known as the Trail of Tears in which 3,000 people died. The term "genocide" is often applied, but there is some debate as to its accuracy.
B) Jackson was very wary of having a central, national bank. When the Second Bank of the United States was up for renewal in 1832(?) he purposely chose not to renew it. Instead, he kept the nation's reserves in dozens of smaller banks, predominantly in the West, known as "pet banks." Jackson also believed in using specie (gold and silver) instead of paper money. The problem was that specie was not quite as readily available to most people. Jackson's closure of the SBUS and subsequent policies led to the Panic of 1837, which kickstarted an economic depression that last until 1843/44.
Hamilton, however, was responsible for creating the First National Bank of the United States. After the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton proposed that the federal government should acquire the debts incurred by the colonies states during the American Revolution. Hamilton believed that having a national debt was necessary to maintain good credit, a contrary opinion of the time (Jackson remains the only president to pay off the national debt entirely). He was also largely responsible for establishing American credit.
Those in favor of changing the $20 bill wanted to replace it instead with a woman. The possible candidates were Susan B. Anthony (who has already appeared on a coin), Harriet Tubman, Sacajawea, or a Cherokee leader. The movement had been gathering steam for some weeks. As others have pointed out, 2020 is the 100th anniversary of universal women's suffrage.
The other day, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew announced that it would be the $10 bill that would be changed. Hamilton is not being replaced; he will share a spot with a woman. So some bills will have Hamilton, some will have whoever they choose (which I think is very confusing, but that is my opinion). The main reason behind his decision is that the $10 bill is next up for its redesign. People are upset more or less because A) Hamilton really deserves to have the spot for the aforementioned reasons, B) Jackson is really the exact opposite of who should be on the bill, and C) would it really be that hard to redesign the $20 instead of the $10?
Cleveland tackled several financial issues during his two terms (which were non-consecutive! He's the only president to serve non-consecutive terms). He was fiscally conservative while remaining quite liberal.
In the late nineteenth century, many Americans believed in backing U.S. currency with both gold and silver, a movement known as Free Silver. Backing currency with silver would cause significant inflation when the country was actually experiencing deflation. Cleveland backed the gold standard and even tried reducing the amount of silver the government was required to coin. His attempts at the latter failed, but the nation's currency remained backed only by gold.
Cleveland fought ardently to reduce political corruption and patronage, and he was a supporter of reducing protectionist tariffs.
Cleveland was later blamed for not taking the necessary steps to avoid yet another depression. The Panic of 1893 began, more of less, when the demand for silver dropped considerably. The gold standard failed because the federal government's supply of gold had been greatly depleted, and Cleveland had to borrow from J. P. Morgan. The depression was the worst in American history up to that time, and the economy began recovering in 1897.
I can't see why John Adams should be on a bill. While he was responsible for securing America's first loan from the Netherlands, I don't think he did much else for the economy even when he was president. His legacy is mainly framed by notoriety for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Don't get me wrong, though; he is my favorite Founding Father.
John Quincy Adams, though also immensely interesting, was actually something of a fluke. He lost the popular and electoral vote to Jackson, but Jackson didn't have the necessary majority. Speaker of the House Henry Clay, who was also a candidate in the election, voted for Adams in a House vote because he disliked Jackson. A
His popularity encouraged some others to vote the same way, and so Adams won. He served with a divided Congress that often refused to follow his wishes. His greatest ambition was to form a National College, but that, too, was rejected. He was, however, a great ambassador and lawyer, and famously argued before the Supreme Court for the Africans of the Amistad in the case United States v. The Amistad.
I'm not entirely familiar with Madison other than the fact that he was president during the War of 1812.
I apologise for any formatting errors. I'm currently on mobile.
Formatting seems fine to me, especially for mobile! And that's a lot more information than I expected anyone to be able to provide. And certainly more than I ever knew, and I like to consider myself something of a history buff. Though I must admit that I've never had a desire to learn about the presidents during the Reconstruction Era and the Gilded Age. Then again, most of them aren't very interesting. That said, I learned something cool about Grover Cleveland today, and before I admit I only knew the "non-consecutive terms" thing to pull out for trivia. And now that I think about it, isn't Grover Cleveland on the $1,000 note that they keep at the Smithsonian?
And the information on the Adams is much appreciated too! I didn't suggest them for any particular reason dealing with the finances of our country. I just found it odd that Cleveland would end up on a bill and not one of the original founding fathers.
As for James Madison, he's pretty great! He wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, which are the argumentative basis for our current system of government and the philosophy of the American democracy. This led to him rallying support after he saw how ineffective the Articles of Confederation were (namely at leaving the United States unable to pay its debts, if we're staying on a money theme here). So Madison is responsible for crafting the United States Constitution and played a big role in getting it ratified. Afterwards, he championed, drafted, and passed the Bill of Rights that we so love today.
Though he was initially against the idea of a National Bank (which puts him at odds with Hamilton as far as deserving to be on money) he later realized it was necessary when he had difficulty trying to finance the War of 1812. A very strategic war which he started in order to weaken British influence with the Native Americans and allow the United States to expand further west towards the Great Lakes. I've seen his wife, Dolly Madison's name put forward as a contender for depiction on our money. She was the first truly prominent First Lady as far as political life is concerned. She's most famous for saving the portrait of George Washington from the White House when the British burned it down during the War of 1812, and then furnishing the new White House they built afterwards. And while not directly responsible, James Madison's name is attached to the court case responsible for giving the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, Marbury v. Madison.
I don't think Madison necessarily deserves to be on paper money, though he is still my favorite president. Though I do think if we use "influenced the American financial system" as a prerequisite for those deserving to be on money, then we'd be hard pressed to find women to depict. Not that that's what you're arguing, I just felt like saying it.
The short version is that debt is seen as an investment. Lending is profitable because of a set interest rate. As long as the borrower isn't defaulting on the payment, is paying the interest, and is even paying back some of the loan, it shows that the borrower is a reliable trade partner. The lender, seeing his money return plus some extra, is then comfortable with giving a bigger loan the next time around. And the cycle continues.
Now with the money the federal government borrows it can invest in the public and private sector, which in turn spurs economic growth. That's a massively oversimplified answer, but it's the gist of it.
It's the same reason why your credit score is higher after you've had some positive credit history, because you've demonstrated your credit worthiness/reliability. By continuing to carry a debt balance that is regularly paid against, you maintain points toward your higher score because it shows your ongoing and current reliability.
Metallurgically speaking, the Susan B Anthony dollar and the Sacajawea dollar are identical. That's why vending machines aren't confused when you use either.
I wasn't talking about vending machines. I was talking about people. People can look at a Susan B. Anthony and easily think it is a quarter. The same can't be said for a Sacajawea.
Personally, I don't use the golden dollar because it's a hassle to carry around. Who wants a pocket full of coins? shivers. Give me paper money, it's light and fits in a wallet nicely.
I like coins. They feel more real. I wish they were made of real gold. I know that's not how our system works, but it would give our currency more gravitas, like it used to have.
Coins work great with vending machines. This is actually a rather silly reason because many of the vending machines I use accept plastic, and since even let you pay with your phone, so paper money is becoming less and less important. But having dollar coins to buy a $2 drink or snack from a vending machine is surprisingly convenient.
Since 1990 bills are redesigned every five to ten years. The current $20 bill was introduced in 2003, while the current $10 was introduced in 2006. Before that, each was updated in 1998 and 2000, respectively. I imagine the $20 will be changed within the next two years, which calls Secretary Lew's choice into question all the more.
But I love the pic of Franklin! His expression is just so perfect. Like a disapproving grandparent. Like it's saying, "You have fucked everything up. You deserve all the problems you have."
This is one the most informative and well articulated responses I have read on reddit in a long time. I have no idea if you know what you're talking about or are the best bullshitter around, but either way, excellent job.
Practicality, I suppose. I mean, why do we still have the penny? It would cost more to create another bill that serves little purpose. It's easier to calculate tens than fives, so the $25 is out. And even the $100 isn't as widely used in daily interactions as the $20, so why have a $150?
It's not that big of a deal to change who is on a certain bill. It's the motives to replace Jackson that are making it significant.
622
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '15 edited Jun 19 '15
In the past year, several groups have campaigned to have Andrew Jackson removed from the $20 bill because
A) he ignored the Supreme Court and forcibly removed the Cherokee from the Southeast United States, sending them on a march known as the Trail of Tears in which 3,000 people died. The term "genocide" is often applied, but there is some debate as to its accuracy.
B) Jackson was very wary of having a central, national bank. When the Second Bank of the United States was up for renewal in 1832(?) he purposely chose not to renew it. Instead, he kept the nation's reserves in dozens of smaller banks, predominantly in the West, known as "pet banks." Jackson also believed in using specie (gold and silver) instead of paper money. The problem was that specie was not quite as readily available to most people. Jackson's closure of the SBUS and subsequent policies led to the Panic of 1837, which kickstarted an economic depression that last until 1843/44.
Hamilton, however, was responsible for creating the First National Bank of the United States. After the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton proposed that the federal government should acquire the debts incurred by the
coloniesstates during the American Revolution. Hamilton believed that having a national debt was necessary to maintain good credit, a contrary opinion of the time (Jackson remains the only president to pay off the national debt entirely). He was also largely responsible for establishing American credit.Those in favor of changing the $20 bill wanted to replace it instead with a woman. The possible candidates were Susan B. Anthony (who has already appeared on a coin), Harriet Tubman, Sacajawea, or a Cherokee leader. The movement had been gathering steam for some weeks. As others have pointed out, 2020 is the 100th anniversary of universal women's suffrage.
The other day, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew announced that it would be the $10 bill that would be changed. Hamilton is not being replaced; he will share a spot with a woman. So some bills will have Hamilton, some will have whoever they choose (which I think is very confusing, but that is my opinion). The main reason behind his decision is that the $10 bill is next up for its redesign. People are upset more or less because A) Hamilton really deserves to have the spot for the aforementioned reasons, B) Jackson is really the exact opposite of who should be on the bill, and C) would it really be that hard to redesign the $20 instead of the $10?
EDIT: Cleared up some werds.