Harriet Tubman to replace Jackson on face of $20 bill

[Borgholio]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/20/treasury ... itico.html

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will announce Wednesday the decision to keep Alexander Hamilton front and center on the $10 bill and place Harriet Tubman on the $20.

The decisions, first reported by Politico, will come more than a month after Lin-Manuel Miranda, the star of the Broadway musical "Hamilton," spoke with Lew about keeping Hamilton on the $10 bill, and about a year after Women on 20s, a nonprofit organization, began a movement to replace former President Andrew Jackson with a woman on the $20.

A Treasury official later told CNBC that Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20, but stopped short of confirming that Hamilton had survived.

Originally, Lew said Hamilton would be replaced by a woman on the $10. "With such a wide reach, America's currency makes a statement about who we are and what we stand for as a nation," he said June 17, adding that "this decision of putting a woman on the $10 bill reflects our aspirations for the future as much as a reflection of the past."

The original plan was never commentary on the first U.S. Treasury secretary.

The Treasury had said in 2013 that it had selected the $10 bill for the next redesign, and the department announced that the new note will be the first of the next democracy-themed generation of currency.

Politico also reported there will be some changes to the $5 bill that will depict civil rights era leaders.

This is great. Instead of replacing Hamilton (who was a respectable man), they will be replacing Jackson who was a genocidal asshole. Even better, they are choosing a black woman to replace him. This is definitely historic, and I look forward to the right-wing tears!

[The Romulan Republic]

Expect it to be reversed if a Republican wins the Presidency.

Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if the Republitard Congress tries to block it.

Still, as a symbolic fuck you to Andrew Jackson, I approve of this.

Reportedly, while Hamilton will remain on the front of the ten, they're going to put five women on the back. I wonder which ones.

I wonder who's going to be added to the five as well.

Edit: I'm pleasantly surprised that they picked Tubman, too. I figured it would be Eleanor Roosevelt.

[Civil War Man]

Reportedly, while Hamilton will remain on the front of the ten, they're going to put five women on the back. I wonder which ones.

I heard the women on the back of the 10 will be a tribute to the suffrage movement, so I suspect it will include prominent members like Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that fits with what they say in the article, which is that the future currency will be "democracy-themed".

[Simon_Jester]

Hm.

I approve of removing Jackson. I do think, though, they should have picked a different woman for the $20.

Traditionally, figures on currency may not be presidents but they have to be major government officials. Tubman wasn't. She was a justifiably famous figure on the margins of American history, but that's not the same thing.

Given the overall goal of emphasizing the role of minorities in American history, I'd have picked Shirley Chisholm (first African-American congresswoman).

Another candidate I'd favor would be Frances Perkins (first Secretary of Labor under FDR, and a good counterpoint to Hamilton's place as first Secretary of the Treasury). However, Perkins was white and I can understand why they'd want to put a black on the bill.

The humorist in me suspects that they picked Tubman because they couldn't fit Chisholm's hairdo in the portrait...

[Flagg]

I hope this is real. If it is, it's the best Hitler's birthday ever!

[Flagg]

Simon, everyone knows who Harriet Tubman is. The average dumbass on the street doesn't know who the fuck Shirley Chisolm or Frances Perkins was.

Also, fuck traditionalism.

[Terralthra]

"Everyone knows who x is, they don't know who y is" is actually an excellent argument in favor of giving y more recognition, I think, but I also think Tubman is a great choice.

[Flagg]

"Everyone knows who x is, they don't know who y is" is actually an excellent argument in favor of giving y more recognition, I think, but I also think Tubman is a great choice.

Why? Most people still think only presidents are on our currency and when you point out Hamilton and Franklin they stare at you blankly as if you're not contradicting them.

[Simon_Jester]

If we put someone who definitely wasn't president on a bill, hopefully that will change?

Simon, everyone knows who Harriet Tubman is. The average dumbass on the street doesn't know who the fuck Shirley Chisolm or Frances Perkins was.

As Terralthra notes, this is a good reason to put them on money. Chisholm, in particular, is a recent political figure- if effort is not made to preserve her memory she will fade into undeserved obscurity. Perkins already occupies such

Also, fuck traditionalism.

Personally I favor dropping traditions when there is a reason, but not otherwise. Tradition allows us to be consistent, and to preserve good rules that keep us from doing stupid things.

As an example, there are a variety of 'traditional' names for US Navy aircraft carriers, which are based on noble abstract concepts, great battles fought in the past, and so on. Then at some point someone decided to name a nuclear carrier for a dead president. Then a Secretary of Defense. Then another dead president, and an admiral... and now we've gotten to where names like "Constellation" and "Ranger" and "Saratoga" are out of style, while names like "Gerald R. Ford" are on the way in.

So we dropped tradition (to commemorate a person who at that particular time we wanted to honor)... but without the precedent to govern what can and cannot be done, the choice of who to honor became a political football. To the extent that it is now being used to honor a literal political football player, one whose sole distinction was that his ass briefly occupied the Oval Office during the mid-70s after Nixon went down in flames.

Having traditions about what category of person we honor in what way helps prevent us from making choices that we'll regret in posterity.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

and now we've gotten to where names like "Constellation" and "Ranger" and "Saratoga" are out of style, while names like "Gerald R. Ford" are on the way in.

Not necessarily. One of the new carriers will be named Enterprise.

And, Tubman's place in history is as significant as any President's, perhaps more. Besides, they'll change it right back to Jackson's after a few years, at best, anyway, same as they did with Sacajawea on the golden dollar coin, now featuring the usual array of dead white European male Presidents.

[Simon_Jester]

And, Tubman's place in history is as significant as any President's, perhaps more.

I think Tubman herself would probably have ceded public recognition to, say, President Lincoln from her same era. So I'm not sure I'd say that. Tubman is known because she was a particularly heroic and successful specific example of an Underground Railroad conductor. She's the poster child for the Underground Railroad, and for this reason received unusual recognition since the Underground Railroad as a whole was by nature a covert, dispersed thing.

Sort of like how the French romanticize the French Resistance, but particularly romanticize a few specific members of the Resistance, even if those specific people never did more than blow up a double handful of Germans. De Gaulle did a lot more for France than any one of those Resistance leaders... and frankly, so did a lot of foreign generals and polticians who weren't even French. On the one hand, that doesn't mean the French should stop lauding the Resistance heroes in question. On the other, it means that those Resistance heroes might not be the best choices to put on French currency. Putting de Gaulle (or other famous historic French leaders) up, and only those leaders, makes more sense.

Besides, they'll change it right back to Jackson's after a few years, at best, anyway, same as they did with Sacajawea on the golden dollar coin, now featuring the usual array of dead white European male Presidents.

I doubt it. Dollar coins were a flash in the pan and went out of style, but we're going to have $20 bills for a long time, and redesigning the bills is hard work. Hopefully the change will stick... Unfortunately, this is another reason I worry about the consequence of picking a person who is famous for personal achievements rather than for achievements directly as a public servant. It increases the chances that the government will view this as a flash in the pan.

[Civil War Man]

Traditionally, figures on currency may not be presidents but they have to be major government officials. Tubman wasn't. She was a justifiably famous figure on the margins of American history, but that's not the same thing.

She was the first American woman to lead a US military operation. Considering how many former military officers we have on our currency, I say she's close enough.

In case you were wondering, the operation was the Combahee River Raid in June of 1863.

They talk about it on an episode of Drunk History.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Civil War Man, I'm embarassed to admit I completely forgot about that. Didn't she also work with Pinkerton's (Secret Service)men during the war as well?

EDIT: Never mind, dumb question was answered by the vid. Though I don't the actual map of the raid said "Mines and Shit."

[Simon_Jester]

I believe she was along as a local guide, not a commander, but it's still at least a partial argument 'for,' I suppose... except that 'has to have a military contribution' is not remotely a requirement for being on currency. Out of the people on currency in common circulation, let's see...

Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR (on the dime), Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin.

Of those, Lincoln never had significant military experience, Jefferson had none at all that I can recall, nor did FDR, nor Franklin. Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Hamilton were all war heroes... but we're removing Jackson anyway.

[Elheru Aran]

Roosevelt was Secretary of the Navy. A civilian position, granted.

[Gandalf]

Also, fuck traditionalism.

Personally I favor dropping traditions when there is a reason, but not otherwise. Tradition allows us to be consistent, and to preserve good rules that keep us from doing stupid things.

I would argue the exact opposite, in that traditions should be kept only when there is a reason to do so. Good rules and practices should be able to stand on their own merits as opposed to appealing to traditions.

As an example, there are a variety of 'traditional' names for US Navy aircraft carriers, which are based on noble abstract concepts, great battles fought in the past, and so on. Then at some point someone decided to name a nuclear carrier for a dead president. Then a Secretary of Defense. Then another dead president, and an admiral... and now we've gotten to where names like "Constellation" and "Ranger" and "Saratoga" are out of style, while names like "Gerald R. Ford" are on the way in.

So we dropped tradition (to commemorate a person who at that particular time we wanted to honor)... but without the precedent to govern what can and cannot be done, the choice of who to honor became a political football. To the extent that it is now being used to honor a literal political football player, one whose sole distinction was that his ass briefly occupied the Oval Office during the mid-70s after Nixon went down in flames.

Having traditions about what category of person we honor in what way helps prevent us from making choices that we'll regret in posterity.

Considering that this has been going on for nearly fifty years (Assuming the ship named for JFK was the first), isn't this now just a silly tradition in itself?

[Joun_Lord]

I like this. Harriet Tubman was important to history and is a good choice to be put on some money. US currency is kind of a white sausage fest before this and while white dudes have played an important role in American history they aren't the only ones. I'm also glad they didn't replace Hamilton. If there was one dude on the money that needed replaced it was Jackson. Plus the level of butthurt coming from the far right is just delicious already.

My only complaint about this, and this is probably going to vanish depending on how the bills are designed, its it sounds like future bills are going to be cluttered as fuck. Also the bills themes don't sound like they make much sense. What does Hamilton have to do with the suffrage movement assuming thats the direction they go? Lincoln and the Civil Rights movement have a more solid link but even that seems tenuous. Maybe I'm just being a stickler but I'd much rather then bills have one entire theme.

All that aside, I do kinda like the reasoning for putting Rosa Parks on the 10. She was apparently fined $10 for her bus ride. That would have been wonderfully ironic for her to be on the 10 dollar bill.

[Broomstick]

Traditionally, figures on currency may not be presidents but they have to be major government officials. Tubman wasn't. She was a justifiably famous figure on the margins of American history, but that's not the same thing.

We can change tradition.

Given the overall goal of emphasizing the role of minorities in American history, I'd have picked Shirley Chisholm (first African-American congresswoman).

Another candidate I'd favor would be Frances Perkins (first Secretary of Labor under FDR, and a good counterpoint to Hamilton's place as first Secretary of the Treasury). However, Perkins was white and I can understand why they'd want to put a black on the bill.

On the other hand, a lot more people have heard of Harriet Tubman, not so much Chisholm or Perkins (though it would be nice if they got a bit more play in history classes, too)

[Broomstick]

Of those, Lincoln never had significant military experience, Jefferson had none at all that I can recall, nor did FDR, nor Franklin. Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Hamilton were all war heroes... but we're removing Jackson anyway.

Lincoln served as a captain in the Illinois Militia during the Black Hawk War in 1832, which is equivalent to serving these day in the Illinois National Guard so he did have some military experience but not a lot.

FDR served as secretary of the navy, a civilian position, but was not actually in the navy.

Jefferson had no military experience except as Commander in Chief.

[Darmalus]

In a different thread someone posted a few picture of historic US bills, it got me wondering why we restrict ourselves to a single person. With 4 coins and 4 bills in circulation (the others being rare enough to be discounted, I haven't seen a 1$ coin in over a year) that's 8 faces, and even representation would be 50% female and only one black and one latino.

If we had a group of 4 or 5 on each bill it'd be easier to put in historic figures that might not otherwise make the cut. I'd still want to reserve one side for a non-human icon, monument, artifact or feature of some sort.

[Pelranius]

Edit: Never mind, I got FDR mixed up with another New York politician.

[Joun_Lord]

In a different thread someone posted a few picture of historic US bills, it got me wondering why we restrict ourselves to a single person. With 4 coins and 4 bills in circulation (the others being rare enough to be discounted, I haven't seen a 1$ coin in over a year) that's 8 faces, and even representation would be 50% female and only one black and one latino.

If we had a group of 4 or 5 on each bill it'd be easier to put in historic figures that might not otherwise make the cut. I'd still want to reserve one side for a non-human icon, monument, artifact or feature of some sort.

The problem with history is there isn't an even representation of the genders or races. Predominately throughout American history historical people were white males. All the Founding Fathers were white males, all Presidents until Barack Obungler, most Senators and Congress critters have been and even now a majority still are (I've read like 80% still are white and male). To have non-whites and non-males represented one has to lower the standards of who gets on money (which probably isn't a bad thing so long as it isn't lowered too far, I don't want one day a fucking Kardashian on a dollar). Someone like Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks is highly important to history but not on the same scale as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, or a President. People who were pioneers of government or ran the entire country. Not exactly alot of non-white males who are part of those categories. But again, like a 30 year old virgin lowering the standards some of who appears on the bills ain't a bad thing.

As for multiple people on the each bill, personally I'd be against multiple people on the same bill because I think it would look cluttered. I like kinda simple but elegant monies. Having multiple people on each denomination, as in multiple versions of the same money, I think might cause headaches by having different versions of the same money. Probably cause confusion for confused people when they are paying for something fast and don't pay too close attention to what they are paying for. Already happens with current money, probably be worse with a greater variety of money.

[Gandalf]

The problem with history is there isn't an even representation of the genders or races. Predominately throughout American history historical people were white males. All the Founding Fathers were white males, all Presidents until Barack Obungler, most Senators and Congress critters have been and even now a majority still are (I've read like 80% still are white and male). To have non-whites and non-males represented one has to lower the standards of who gets on money (which probably isn't a bad thing so long as it isn't lowered too far, I don't want one day a fucking Kardashian on a dollar). Someone like Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks is highly important to history but not on the same scale as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, or a President. People who were pioneers of government or ran the entire country. Not exactly alot of non-white males who are part of those categories. But again, like a 30 year old virgin lowering the standards some of who appears on the bills ain't a bad thing.

That's ridiculous. There are "historical people" who weren't politicians. What of the most celebrated artists, humanitarians, explorers, scientists, and so on?

[TimothyC]

Expect it to be reversed if a Republican wins the Presidency.

Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if the Republitard Congress tries to block it.

Why? It removes a prominent Democrat and replaces him with someone who was an abolitionist, when that term was synonymous with being a Republican (so Republicans will claim her).