Jack Lew nears decision to keep Hamilton on front of $10 bill, put a woman on the $20
Source: CNN
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is expected to announce this week that Alexander Hamilton's face will remain on the front of the $10 bill and a woman will replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill, a senior government source told CNN on Saturday.
Lew announced last summer that he was considering redesigning the $10 bill to include the portrait of a woman. The decision to make the historic change at the expense of Hamilton drew angry rebukes from fans of the former Treasury Secretary. The pro-Hamilton movement gained steam after the smash success of the hip-hop Broadway musical about his life this year.
Those pressures led Lew to determine that Hamilton should remain on the front of the bill. Instead, a mural-style depiction of the women's suffrage movement -- including images of leaders such as Susan B. Anthony -- will be featured on the back of the bill.
A Treasury spokesman declined to comment on the pending changes. But Lew hinted that a decision could come this week.
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/16/news/economy/jack-lew-hamilton-10-bill/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
beastie boy
(9,404 posts)After all, we have Hamilton to thank for all of our dollar bills.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)People may not like Jackson, but he did what the people of his time period wanted. Jackson supported the people and opposed the banks. Hamilton supported the banks and opposed the people. Both owned slaves, (Jackson a lot more then Hamilton) but it was Hamilton whose banks held mortgages on slaves.
Yes, Jackson had told the Civilized tribes to move west, for the troops he had available to enforce the Supreme Court's decision had been promised by their home states the lands those tribes were on when Jackson advised them to move (Technically the move was an ORDER by CONGRESS and was enforced by Van Buren when Van Buren succeeded Jackson as President). Only part of the Cherokees listen to Jackson (and that was via Sam Houston) and that part suffered little. The problem the majority of the Tribe waited till the Georgia Militia showed up to remove them. The Regular US Army was assigned the task of transporting the tribes west, but do to the speed of the Removal by the North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee Militia, the Regular US Army had only the supply to move 1/5th of the tribes (The plan was to move the tribes in five movements, but do to the demand for the lands, the tribes all had to go in one movement).
Jackson blamed the Tribes themselves for the trail of tears, they waited to long to move.
AS to Hamilton, he was the author of the excise tax on whiskey, that lead to the Whiskey rebellion of the early 1790s. It would have been a blood bath, except Yellow Fever hit Philadelphia in the Summer of 1791, and Congress did not allocated any money to put down the rebellion till 1793. By 1793 the local leaders had managed to calm down the residents of Western Pennsylvania so when Washington did lead the Army to Pittsburgh in 1793, they was little fighting (Had the invasion occurred in 1792, it would have lead to massive bloodshed). The Whiskey Rebellion was organized through the Western Pennsylvania Militia (Which by law every male between the ages of 18 and 45 was a member of at the time). Do to Hamilton's failure to open up New Orleans to US Trade, the only real trade good Western Pennsylvania had in the 1790s was Whiskey, and given the lack of any form of money, whiskey was also used as money in Western Pennsylvania. Thus was far as the rebels were concern Hamilton was taxing money, not wealth or even items, with his tax on whiskey. The Whiskey tax in effect was if you had $10 in cash, you owned the Government a Dollar in tax, but if you owned $100,000 in land or any other type of property, you did not have to pay anything. This had been common in the Colonial era, thus Hamilton knew what he was doing when he passed the Whiskey tax, but given most people on the frontier supported Jefferson, Hamilton did not care is his tax on whiskey was unpopular (Until it caused open rebellion, which could not be suppressed in 1792, by 1793 suppression of that rebellion was important to Hamilton, even at the cost of NOT enforcing the Whiskey tax, which is one of the things Hamilton did in 1792-1793 period).
Hamiltons view on the US GOvernment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton#cite_note-67
Sorry, Yes, Jackson held slaves and ordered the removal of First Americans, but it was Hamilton that wanted a rule by the Elite of the US not the people, and who preferred the Banks having power not the people.
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)Unless you were Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw or Seminole.
"Jackson blamed the Tribes themselves for the trail of tears, they waited to long to move."
Of course he did. He did sign the Indian Removal Act, after all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
You can try to shine up this turd all you want, it is still a turd. When it comes to native Americans, Andrew Jackson is no hero.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)After they pulled similar bullshit to the housing crisis. I imagine the secretary of treasury (ie. former banker and future banker/bank consultant) would prefer to get some pay back for that.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)
Since Jackson was such a dick. I know a lot of American Indians who won't touch a $20 bill because his face is on it.
And screw that mural idea... unless it's on the FRONT of the bill. No ifs, ands, or buts.
right you are, thank you.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)I actually have a clue about that.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Since a 20 usually is what an ATM machine spits out.
Agree with your sentiment though
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)reservation?
There are some communities in this country (within our borders) where there's so little money around that barter is the method of trade w/o cash... and some will ask for their cash in tens and fifties, fives and ones. When you have a reason for a certain way you act, it becomes a part of your everyday functioning. Might be hard for you and many others to imagine but it's a real thing. Millions of us live way out in the uncitified world and some things just aren't as hard to do as some might imagine.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)I was curious.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)I was amazed when I came out here decades ago to realize that what I thought I knew about American Indians was bunk and that I had a lot to learn. There are several reservations in the tri-state area (ID, MT, WY) and I know so many Indians now that I even practice some of their cultural practices because they make much more sense than what I was taught as a child... makes life in poverty easier to deal with too.
former9thward
(32,068 posts)I go there to buy gas and cigars. Never had any issues with $20 bills.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)it's a personal thing so it depends on who you talk to. Up here, there are quite a few who feel that way.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Today, do to inflation, we have embraced the bills as money and "Change" as almost worthless. I remember when the local bus fare was 35 cents (And that included a 10 cent transfer). Gasoline till the late 1960s was 25 cents a gallon. Most tanks even then were 15 to 20 gallons, thus you could fill a tank with 20 gallons of Gas for $5.00. You could buy a soda out of a machine for a Dime (I remember one such machine lasting till the mid 1970s, most other machines were charging 25 cents by then). It was a HUGE shock when pay phones went from a nickel to a dime for a local call in the 1960s.
It was so bad no one carried 20s, many stores did NOT have enough change to cash in a $20 dollar bill (as late as the 1980s stores will have signs "No bills larger then a $10" for anything larger could clear them out of all of their smaller bills, by the 1990s such signs changed to $50, then such signs just disappeared as credit cards moved into the market AND do to inflation people may NOT get any change if they used a $50 bill to buy something).
In the 1970s you started to see a lot of 10s, but it was still mostly Fives and Ones that were used. That was true well into the 1970s. It is only in the 1980s that you started to see widespread use of 10s and 20s as the double digit inflation of Carter was replaced by the 6 to 8 Percentage inflation of Reagan and the first Bush. The later was more deadly then Carter's inflation for it lasted almost 16 years (Eight years of Reagan, Four years of Bush and did not drop to 2-3 % till the last years of Clinton's Presidency).
There was a move to the $50 and $100 bills under Clinton, but that died down do to the increase number of counterfeit bills hitting the market do to the advent of color laser copiers. The advent of ATMS made the $20s the bill of choice, and most coke machines today can take dollars (and many can take a five dollar bill).
Unless you are in the Cash economy, you can avoid using the $20 bill, if you are in the cash economy you have to use it today (it is like the Quarter of my youth, the most important piece of currency for it was the most common in use). Change is becoming obsolete as more and more people use Credit and Debit cards, which can charge to the nearest cent. Most aid to poor people is now done by some sort of Debit Card (thus can avoid using any form of cash).
It has been a slow change, but most poor people use debit cards today for the states found them to be cheaper then the cost of printing and sending out food stamps and checks. The Federal Government has done the same for most of its programs for the poor. It is so bad that in many states Child and Spousal Support is paid to the state and then deposited into an account only accessible via a "Debit" type card (In many ways this is to protect such money from attachment do to someone having a money judgement against the recipients of such payments do to the fact that state legislatures have refused increase the amount of exemption from such attachment once the money is in a bank account).
On the other hand, I do NOT see First Americans refusing to use $20 bills because Jackson is on it. I see the "refusal" to use the $20 as the $20 is to big AND to small a bill for most of the smaller stores around and in such reservations. Most bills will be paid by check, including rent, car payments, insurance payments and credit cards. Once those are paid for, small transactions are the way to go, unless you going into "Town" to stock up for a month or or so of supplies, then a Credit/Debit card will suffice. For local transaction, the Five dollar bill may by ideal (A similar problem has arose in Canada, thus Canada has abolished its cent AND its dollar bill, replacing the Dollar Bill with a coin). Thus the $20 is to large for small local transactions, and to small for any large purchase. I see that occurring with the rest of America sooner or later as more and more stores embrace credit cards and thus making it more and more likely that any large purchase will be by credit or debit card, while only smaller transaction will rely on cash. Given the low income of most people on Reservations that movement is being seen on such reservations first.
My point is is NOT that First Americans refuse to handle the $20 bill, it is just it is to large a bill for most local transactions and larger transactions are being increasingly done with Credit/Debit cards.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I think.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)seemed to me it was more like an either/or thing. First they mention that the ten would remain in tact on the front, the women mural thing was mentioned as anything more than an after thought.
Should change the faces on some other bills too.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,591 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)It was Harriet Tubman...which I think is a magnificent choice.
Other candidates in the voting rounds included Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Wilma Mankiller, Alice Paul, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Sojourner Truth, Rachel Carson, Barbara Jordan, Margaret Sanger, Patsy Mink, Clara Barton, Frances Perkins, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. In all, more than 85 candidates were considered.
That said, I think Tubman was far-and-away the best choice. I urge Jack Lew to strongly consider the results of the Women on the $20 campaign...if not Tubman, than one of the other three final ballot candidates: Parks, Roosevelt and Mankiller.
http://www.womenon20s.org/meet_the_winner
(Complete with a mock-up of a Tubman $20.)
Rhiannon12866
(205,851 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)2naSalit
(86,765 posts)in a very succinct manner...
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Everything was personal to him; most of his political positions evolved from the vendettas which he relentlessly pursued. He was our first mass-murderer President. He destroyed the oligarchy that secretly ran the United States, but only because they had offended him.
He was the first President to be bitch-slapped in public. He's the only President to personally beat the snot out of an attempted assassin.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-narrowly-escapes-assassination
He was an asshole, and proud of it, and he appealed strongly to other assholes, exactly as Donald Trump does.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I do not know what you would do it someone tried to shoot you down in the middle of the street. This was NOT a long range assassin attempt, but point blank range and he did what people are advised to do in such situations, charge the attacker (It minimize the time you are in the assassin's sites) . In the subsequent confusion a Navy Lieutenant (with the assistance of Davy Crockett) subdued the assassin.
http://www.history.com/news/andrew-jackson-dodges-an-assassination-attempt-180-years-ago
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)How about the Statue of Liberty on the front?
And several different backs with different women doing what they did that was important. There are too many to chose from.
elmac
(4,642 posts)They will probably find a way to get Ayn Rand on the $20
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)It will force education on all Americans about women's roles in shaping the lives of every citizen and offer a closer look at what is and what it could be.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)turbinetree
(24,710 posts)and for thousands of woman in this country who helped there fellow human being....................
http://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/frances-perkins
Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Very good short bio.
turbinetree
(24,710 posts)I think, that she was just one of greatest woman...............................
Honk----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Sorry to be picky, but "Francis" is male, "Frances" is female.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Gene Debs
(582 posts)different designs for each denomination of bill. Say, five different $5s, five different $10s, etc. You could feature a whole slew more of great and influential and important Americans on the currency than there are now.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts) Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)But because there's not a picture of her in existence where she doesn't look extremely pissed off.
Let that be a warning for the banksters.
christx30
(6,241 posts)there would never be a picture of me that didn't look pissed off.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)
It just looks like she's confused.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)The musical 'Hamliton' played a judge role in this.
It is much better idea to replace Jackson than Hamliton.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Both Hamilton and Jackson owned slaves, but it is Jackson who thought it was wrong (but did it anyway for that was how you became rich in the South prior to the Civil War).
As to the play, it plays loose with history, for we have records in Hamilton's own handwriting of his purchased of slaves for himself and relatives. Slavery was NOT big in New York State in the 1790s, but loaning money and holding slaves as collateral for those loans were done in many of the banks Hamilton backed. Hamilton's few attacks on slaves are more attacks on Jefferson, being a slave holder, then on Slavery.
IronLionZion
(45,514 posts)because they're too stupid to believe it. I hope someone collects data on this by region. I suspect more conservative areas will have retailers refusing 20s with women on it.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)have several counterfeit detection devices from lights to pens that it shouldn't be too hard to accept. They'll find out too if they take it to the banks, they are always up to date on changes in currency.
IronLionZion
(45,514 posts)like the type who know that Obama is American, but they pretend that he's Kenyan with a fake birth certificate.
Those types will see this as some sort of feminist conspiracy to kill jobs or something.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)and I agree. For those folks there's nothing you can do for them that would be acceptable so just walk away. Haters are gonna hate because they can.
Reter
(2,188 posts)
At that point, I will request anything but $20s!!! Can't stand that woman, I'd just have to say "NO!"
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)Hamilton was a far right fascist conservative. Now we still need to remove some names off of other places. J. Edgar Hoover name off the FBI building, and a name change for the Ronald Reagan Airport.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But Hoover on FBI building is a travesty.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)When it was introduced, all the banknotes feature fictional architecture. They still do. No national symbols on the banknotes at all. Bland.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)He would now qualify as a big government liberal.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)He liked the banks, and invested in them extensively. The First Bank of the US, was his creation, it was a private bank that controlled US tax money. He invested in the first water service to New York City, a needed project of the time, that he made a mint out of. He favored a life time Presidency who had an absolute Veto (Knowing the first President would be Washington, a many he had worked with during the Revolution and by 1787 knew how to get him to do what Hamilton wanted). Hamilton wanted a complex method of picking not only the President but Senators, a system of electors who then elected other electors who then picked the President and Senators. Hamilton disliked Democracy and considered it bad, for it permitted the poor to vote for people who wanted to help the poor not the rich.
As American Democracy went on the March from the 1790s to 1860s, Hamilton was ignored and forgotten, till the GOP resurrected him in the 1850s, as someone who opposed Jefferson. The banks, on the march in the 1850s (included the banks Hamilton help found) all started to praise Hamilton (and attack Jefferson and Burr, mostly Burr for having founded Tammey Hall of New York City, which was then in the fight with the Bankers of New York City over Control of that City).
No, once you study Hamilton you quickly learn to love slave owning Jefferson as the person who wanted to help the working class of the US as oppose to helping the rich.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Jefferson's dream would have been to discourage industrialization and keep the US a nation of farmers. Hamilton was an elitist ass, but at least his economic policy was based on reality. The people following Jefferson were in many ways the predecessors of the "Taxes and Government bad" idiots in today's GOP.
Indeed, I would consider the modern Democratic Party to be a unification of the two's ideas, Jeffersonian ends by Hamiltonian means.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, in Colonial America, you will did not have the 1% as we understand that term today, but either John Hancock or George Washington was the richest man in America at that time period (With most people saying John Hancock held that title prior to the revolution, and Washington taking that title post Revolution).
At that time period you had your rich elites (Which Hamilton was a member of, even through his family itself was quite poor, his family had connections, thus Hamilton rapid rise in society) but most people were yeoman farmers (With a sizable population of landless poor, which appears to have been something new in the 1770s, British writers make the comment that prior to the French and Indian war they were NOT enough poor people in America to recruit troops out of, but the US did raise such troops in the Revolution out of the landless peasants such troops came from in the 1700s (the Militia was something different, made up of yeoman farmers, but the militiamen were also NOT full time soldiers, like the Troops Washington wanted and finally had after Valley Forge).
Both Jefferson and Hamilton opposed industrialization. Jefferson for it required a set of people to poor to own land and be farmers and Hamilton on the ground industry took investment away from the banks and into industry (in fact studies have shown the Banks have NEVER invested in anything new, such investments have always been private funds outside of the Banks, that was true of the advancement of Railroads in the 1800s, steel in the late 1800s and Computer high Tech of today. Thus Hamilton was interested in land speculation (as was George Washington and even Jefferson) but not industrialization. Industrialization had to fight the shipping interest of New England for investments and workers. Industrialization occurred along the Connecticut river (which flows through western Massachusetts to Connecticut), while shipping remain the main investment in Boston and Hamilton's New York City. Shipping and land speculation was what Hamilton supported (and some of Hamilton closest advisers ended up opposing the Erie Canal, which supports the idea so would have Hamilton but Hamilton died in 1804 while before the Canal was even proposed).
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Hamilton died over a century before Fascism was even a thing. And the ideological spectrum back then was very different than today.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)... that this is an Internet comment section and that a post like yours that has reason and logic has no place here.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)pengu
(462 posts)Give me Harriet Tubman, please.
Califonz
(465 posts)I wonder what George, Abe, Alex, Andy J., and Benny F. would have thought if someone said people in the distant future were going to put their pictures on little paper rectangles and store them in a leather folder next to their ass cheeks.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Ben Franklin once made a comment that the outlawing of Pennsylvania's paper money by the Crown in the 1760s lead to the US Revolution. Pennsylvania had issued paper money during the French and Indian War and then paid it off in the 1760s as the war ended. The payments were in the form of tax payments. You could pay your taxes in the paper money issued by the Colonial Government of Pennsylvania. The money itself was used to buy supplies for fighting the war. It was a system that worked and worked well, till the British Government told Colonial Pennsylvania to stop issuing such paper for only the crown could print of mint money. Given the lack of such currency on the colonies that was the same as saying "All money is mine, you do not get to have any, even if you need it".
Thus Ben Franklin liked paper money for it paid for not only the French and Indian War but the US Revolution.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Stay strong, theater majors. The accountants bow before you!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)houston16revival
(953 posts)and war hero, no matter what one thinks of him today
and a successful businessman, owning general stores on the frontier
Hamilton was a finance guy and a Treasury Secretary
He is worshipped, in my humble opinion, far beyond his importance
Shoonra
(523 posts)Alexander Hamilton should always be accorded a place on US currency, because he was largely responsible for the American financial system.
Andrew Jackson was an enemy of central banks - a fact never forgotten or unmentioned by modern rightwingers, who somehow conveniently forget to mention that Jackson's monetary policies brought on the Panic of 1837. Someone responsible for such a disaster gets no assurance of perpetuity on the nation's currency.
It's about time that a woman was featured on American currency. Offhand I cannot think of one of enormous economic impact, but the spot on the $20 could be kind of rotating with a different portrait every five or ten years or so.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, if you had said Jackson's paying off of the US debt caused that Panic, I would agree with you for that is what cause the Panic of 1837. Jackson believed in a balanced budget AND paying off US debts. He managed to do BOTH, something no other President has even done. The problem with paying off of the debt was it lead to a shortage of money in the National Economy, for the people paid off refused to spend that money and it is the SPENDING of money that drives an economy not who has the money.
President Van Buren also wanted to keep the budget balanced, so when the Georgia Militia kicked the Civilized Tribes out of their reservation, Van Buren had no money to raise any troops other then calling out the same Militia being used by the States to remove the Tribes (and the States were paying the Militia with the land the state took from the tribes, in 1837 the Federal Government had no such land to give for selling land in the west was the second biggest source of revenue for the Federal Government, second to the Tariff, thus giving the Militia lands in the west was NOT an option to the cash strapped government of 1837).
What van Buren should have done was just printed money and use that money to enforce the treaty. This was NOT seen as an option for the US was going into an era where you had various forms of bad paper currencies in circulation. The States could NOT print paper money but private banks could and did. The problem was much of this money ended up being worthless. The Bank of the US had NOT even tried to make a national currency, leaving that up to the mint thus the destruction of the bank (The Bank of the US did survive Jackson's refusal to renew its charter, it lasted a few more years as a Pennsylvania charted banks till it went under).
Sorry, while it is a common statement that the refusal to renew the Bank of the US Charter was what caused the Panic of 1837, it was the issuance of paper money by private banks that caused that Panic. A Panic that could have been avoided if the Bank of the US had decided to issue currency on its own on a national basis, but it would have had to do so from it foundation in the 1810s NOT in the 1830s. That lack of a National Currency was the main attack on the Bank of the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
Please note, the Bank of the US lasted till 1841, the lost of its Charter had little affect on the Panic of 1837. The withdraw of US Government deposits was a major blow, but the bank survived that blow. The bank's biggest problem was failing to ring in the private banks printing of money, all the Bank of the US had to say was ANY transaction with the Bank of the US had to be in currency issued by the Bank of the US. Instead the Bank of the US took in currency from other banks in their own currency. That was the fatal flaw. In the Panic of 1819 the President of the Bank of the US had opt for "Austerity" by not only withdrawing its own paper money from the national economy but also demanding payment in Gold and Silver from banks that had printed and given to the Bank of the US, their own currency. This had bought the bank bad feelings that Jackson exploited. When Jackson refused to renew the Charter of the Bank of the US on the ground the Bank of the US had NEVER been able to develop a national currency, it was to late for the Bank of the US to correct its mistake.
Thus come 1837, the Bank of the US could NOT lend out money for it no longer had US Government deposits to loan out. The US Government could not and given the paying off of the National Debt the National Government could have done so, but such spending was NOT considered a government duty in the 1830s.
Another failure was in the boom of 1816 to 1819, the bank had failed to do what a National Bank is suppose to do "Take away the punch bowl as the party gets going". The speculative bubble of that time period had gone on to long and should have been cut back while before it collapses, as all bubbles do. The bank had failed to do so and then in response had embraced "Austerity" instead of loaning out more money. i.e. the Bank REFUSED to cut bank loans during the bubble, but then cut back to much during the subsequent Panic. Sounds like the Fed today, NOT ending the bubble early, and then NOT giving the Economy a kick when it needs it.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)When we start getting into debate about which faces should be on the bill, it will become about politics very quickly. Democrats in power will want liberals on the bills, Republicans in power will push for conservatives.
That's when it becomes a joke.
