Should Andrew Jackson Be on the 20 Dollar Bill
- Submitted by: juanmunozzz
- Views: 414
- Category: History: American
- Date Submitted: 11/10/2014 08:34 PM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Should Andrew Jackson be on the 20 Dollar Bill?
Andrew Jackson hasn’t always been on the 20-dollar bill. He did not appear on it until 1928. Ever since then there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not he is an appropriate choice to be on the 20-dollar bill. Some people believe that Jackson was placed there as historical irony. I think that Jackson should not be on the bill, mainly because of one characteristic that he had. It was his how he felt about the national bank. Jackson hated the Bank of the United States for many different reasons.
During his presidency, one of his major goals was to 'kill the bank.' He distrusted the federal bank and made it his priority to destroy it. The charter for the Bank of the United State was going to run out in 1836. However, Jackson could not let it die a 'natural" death. Instead, he carried out certain actions that caused the bank to fail, such as removing federal revenue from the national bank and placing it into several smaller state banks known as "pet bank." This led to the end of the Bank of the United States.
Also Jackson did many cruel things to our nations first inhabitants. He was the reason for the forced removal of more than 40,000 Native Americans and the death of about 4,000 of them. Should a man who did that to the people who had the right to this land first be highly honored on one of the most used bills in this country?
Jackson’s actions and beliefs show that the only reason he should be on a bill is out of irony. He believed that the bank would end him so he went against it. He did not like the use of soft, or paper currency and yet his face is on the paper bill that represents the bank that he wanted to get rid of.
Although it might be reasonable for Jackson’s image to be on a piece of hard currency, like a coin, it is obvious to say that Andrew Jackson does not belong on the American 20-dollar bill. However, unless he is on the bill for intentional historical irony then no face would be...
Andrew Jackson hasn’t always been on the 20-dollar bill. He did not appear on it until 1928. Ever since then there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not he is an appropriate choice to be on the 20-dollar bill. Some people believe that Jackson was placed there as historical irony. I think that Jackson should not be on the bill, mainly because of one characteristic that he had. It was his how he felt about the national bank. Jackson hated the Bank of the United States for many different reasons.
During his presidency, one of his major goals was to 'kill the bank.' He distrusted the federal bank and made it his priority to destroy it. The charter for the Bank of the United State was going to run out in 1836. However, Jackson could not let it die a 'natural" death. Instead, he carried out certain actions that caused the bank to fail, such as removing federal revenue from the national bank and placing it into several smaller state banks known as "pet bank." This led to the end of the Bank of the United States.
Also Jackson did many cruel things to our nations first inhabitants. He was the reason for the forced removal of more than 40,000 Native Americans and the death of about 4,000 of them. Should a man who did that to the people who had the right to this land first be highly honored on one of the most used bills in this country?
Jackson’s actions and beliefs show that the only reason he should be on a bill is out of irony. He believed that the bank would end him so he went against it. He did not like the use of soft, or paper currency and yet his face is on the paper bill that represents the bank that he wanted to get rid of.
Although it might be reasonable for Jackson’s image to be on a piece of hard currency, like a coin, it is obvious to say that Andrew Jackson does not belong on the American 20-dollar bill. However, unless he is on the bill for intentional historical irony then no face would be...