Scot Scoop News

Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

Save+up+your+%2420+bills+because+Harriet+Tubman+is+sending+Andrew+Jackson+to+the+back+of+the+bill+for+a+long+time.
Back to Article
Back to Article

Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

Save up your $20 bills because Harriet Tubman is sending Andrew Jackson to the back of the bill for a long time.

Save up your $20 bills because Harriet Tubman is sending Andrew Jackson to the back of the bill for a long time.

Justin Som

Save up your $20 bills because Harriet Tubman is sending Andrew Jackson to the back of the bill for a long time.

Justin Som

Justin Som

Save up your $20 bills because Harriet Tubman is sending Andrew Jackson to the back of the bill for a long time.

Justin Som, Staff Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Even though Andrew Jackson violently evicted many Native Americans from their lands, there is no real support as to the conjecture of him being an unworthy president. Having extended the nation to almost twice its prior size, the United States would not have been as prosperous without either his policies or his 12 vetoes of legislation plans.

Jackson’s removal of the Apache Indians and other native groups was certainly detrimental to Native American communities, but the decision of the U.S. Treasury to remove him with the excuse of “he’s had his time,” and replace him with Harriet Tubman, is a flaccid answer to a completely unnecessary predicament.

On the topic of why Jackson should be removed, a “select time period” for currency is not a justifiable reason as to the demotion of a president. Unlike the term of which a president holds office, there is no expiration date for how long one can be on currency.

In an interview with CNN, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew claimed that the reason for the eventual change was a need for “better security” and “not wanting to wait any longer to put a woman on currency,” but such reasons are not base enough to topple a man who at one point was the most powerful man in the United States.

Jackson, who was also the seventh president of the United States, not only allowed for the creation of the Jacksonian Democracy, which gave all adult white men voting rights, but also created the foundations of the modern Democratic party.

Lew’s justification for halting counterfeit currency is likewise unjustified. The threat of counterfeiting was a problem that was solved with the addition of the blue ribbon, which caused counterfeiting to diminish to only “0.01 percent of currency in circulation,” according to a CNN source.

Likewise, the belief that it is wrong to have “mass murderer” Andrew Jackson in one’s back pocket, is equally incorrect when considered in the context of our founding fathers.

George Washington, the “father of our nation,” is on the one dollar bill. Washington killed sleeping British soldiers in ambushes during the Revolutionary War, and Thomas Jefferson, who is on the two dollar bill, had over 600 slaves in his plantations.

However, it is only Jackson thus far that is being removed from the front of our bills; a man, who is being replaced with a woman who helped free African American slaves.

In conclusion, it may certainly be a woman’s turn to be on a currency, but demoting Jackson is the wrong way of doing so.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






About the Contributor
Justin Som, Staff Writer

Justin Som is a senior at Carlmont High School who participates in community service every month to help the city. He enjoys arguing with others and is...

2 Comments

2 Responses to “Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money”

  1. Megan Uozumi on May 2nd, 2016 11:26 pm

    Justin Som,
    The both of us operate under American currency, in which, I think it is important to note that Abraham Lincoln is featured on the five dollar bill, not Thomas Jefferson (see paragraph eight).
    On a separate note, I think it is important that I address the flaws in your opinion.
    Seeing as though the United States population consists of at least fifty percent females, it would only make sense for there to be equal representation on our paper money. The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, meaning therefore, that it has been almost two hundred and forty years that our great nation has existed without a woman permanently featured on a bill. I should also add that there are currently seven bill denominations in common circulation. Since each is comprised of two sides, that would total fourteen sides. Fourteen sides previously filled with men. Now however, as your article explains, there is a woman who will be printed on one of these fourteen sides. A tyranny of sorts under the misogynistic beliefs with which you operate. However, you should know that one of fourteen sides is roughly seven percent. That would mean that there exists only seven percent representation for the United States female population, which constitutes (as previously mentioned) for half of the population.
    You also argue that the removal of Andrew Jackson (from one side) of the twenty dollar bill is an act centered around demeaning him. This is entirely invalid. While clever, your victimization of Mr. Jackson is misguided. He is not being removed, or demoted, nor are his services to our country being forgotten. Mr. Jackson will remain on one side of the twenty dollar bill. Furthermore, I noticed that your writing attempts to evoke empathy toward Mr. Jackson, whom we both know is dead. To say that he ‘deserves’ something more than any woman is borderline offensive.
    I do appreciate the honesty of your article, as it is brave to step out with such interesting ideology, though I will admit that this has scarred my impression of Carlmont journalism. For a group that preaches acceptance and equality this article (though categorized as opinion) starkly juxtaposes the rest of the Scots Scoop community in a way that I can only see negatively.

  2. Justin Som on May 11th, 2016 2:42 pm

    Thank you for commenting on this article. As a staff writer of Scot Scoop, I greatly appreciate all comments and suggestions which can possibly improve articles. With that said, I do admit that I made an error in saying that Thomas Jefferson was on the five dollar bill when really he is on the two dollar bill. Such an error was on my part, and I am grateful as to you notifying us of this mistake.
    On the other hand, I disagree with the implications of misogyny that you link towards my opinion. I am advocating for keeping Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill because his presidency did have its merits despite some popular opinions. Instead though, you argued that my article was sexist, and was based off the opinion that we should not have a woman on currency. However, my opinion is quite the opposite. I support Jackson because of his founding of the Democratic Party and Jacksonian democracy.

    I do not advocate for the placement of Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill because it would result in the demotion of Jackson, who deserves our respect. It is true that he is not being removed completely, but he is being moved from the front to the back, which is irrefutably a demotion. Of course I agree that women should definitely be placed on currency, but the removal of key American figures is not the proper way to bring about this progress. Instead, I feel that Harriet Tubman should be simply placed on a different bill or even a coin.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond my article. I appreciate you taking the time to consider my opinion and reply with your own. However, I would also like to note that, as you said in your comment, this article is filed under the opinion category and thus is solely representative of my opinion. Pieces filed under the category of editorials are the ones that are representative of the views of Scot Scoop if you are interested in reading these pieces.

We invite comments and responses to our content. Comments will be published that are deemed appropriate and relevant.

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Left
  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Opinion: Cats and dogs are both great pets

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    In-Depth

    The normality of gun violence

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Queer Time Episode Nine: Mainstream Multimedia – Part One: Music

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Opinion: Moving on is hard

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Editorials

    Editorial: Brandy Melville couldn’t care less about the average female

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Editorials

    Editorial: Waitlists bring more false hope than admission

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Opinion: Stop talking about Jordyn Woods

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Opinion: My culture is most-likely your prom dress

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Queer Time Episode Eight: Resistance

  • Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money

    Opinion

    Opinion: The UC System is cheating California residents

Navigate Right

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






The student news site of Carlmont High School in Belmont, California.
Andrew Jackson deserves the front of your money